# Administrative Investigations:

# Do it 

![](media/image1.wmf){width="3.203472222222222in"
height="3.2708333333333335in"}Right

the

First Time

# 

# Resource Guidebook

# 

# 

# *Department of Veterans Affairs*

# *Employee Education System July 2004* 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# NOTICE

# 

# Please be advised that this administrative investigation guidebook is intended only as a training tool and guide. It is sincerely hoped that its contents will serve to facilitate the three (3) stages of the investigative process: Planning and preparation, fact gathering, and analysis and report writing. It should not be viewed as a formal policy nor should it be interpreted as such. Further, its contents do not necessarily apply to investigations conducted by the Office of Inspector General. 

# FORWARD

In investigation is a methodical process whereby the true facts about a
situation or event are ascertained. An individual assigned to act as a
member on a board of investigation normally has minimal investigative
experience. This training handbook is intended to act as a guide to the
investigative process. It will familiarize the board member with the
components of the process and educate the board member in the skills
necessary to achieve the board's goals.

**The Guidebook was originally developed and prepared by**:

Ron Angel

Director, VA Law Enforcement TC

2200 Fort Roots Drive 07A/NLR

North Little Rock, AR 72114

Nancy M. Moran

Office of Regional Counsel

4800 Memorial Drive

Waco, TX 76711

Bill Robbins

Director, VBA-HRM Center

1600 East Woodrow Wilson Avenue

Jackson, MS 39216

Steven Wise

Investigator, VA IG

801 I Street, NW

Washington, DC 20001

Terry Wolk

Office of Regional Counsel

1240 E. 9^th^ Street

Cleveland, OH 44199

# 

#  

# This guidebook was revised in 2004 through the efforts of the following individuals in collaboration with the Employee Education System:

# 

# Larry Ables

# Senior Employee Relations Specialist

# Office of Human Resources Management

# Washington, DC 20420

# 

# Catherine J. Baranek

# Employee Relations Specialist

# Office of Human Resources Management

# Washington, DC 20420

# 

# George Corsoro

# Management Analyst

National Cemetery Administration

Washington, DC 20420

Meghan Serwin Flanz

General Attorney

Office of General Counsel

Washington, DC 20420

Dan Kowalski

HRM Consultant

Veterans Health Administration

Washington, DC 20420

Mauricio Ponce

Human Resources Officer

VA Medical Center

6439 Garners Ferry Road

Columbia, SC 29209

Clara Trapnell

HRM Consultant

Veterans Health Administration

Washington, DC 20420

**TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE**

1\. Administrative InvestigationS 4

1.1 Definitions 4

1.2 Authority 4

1.3 Purpose 4

1.4 Mandatory Investigations 4

1.5 Discretionary Investigations 5

1.6 Focused Reviews 5

1.7 Peer Reviews 6

1.8 Supervisory Fact Finding 6

1.9 Potential Applications of an Administrative Investigation 6

2\. The Investigation Process 7

2.1 Initiation of the Investigation (the basics) 7

> Authorization Letter 7

Panel Appointment 7

Administration of Oaths 7

Recording the Proceedings 7

Timeliness of Reporting Requirements 7

Qualified Immunity from Defamation Lawsuits 8

2.2 The Planning Stage -- Laying the Groundwork 8

Framework and Goal 8

Essential Components 8

2.3 Employee Rights, Obligations, and Other legal Issues 11

Employee Cooperation 11

Self-Incrimination 11

Retaliatory Actions 12

Right to Representation 12

Union Representation 13

Release of Information 14

Release of Individual Testimony 14

Degree of Proof Required 15

Referral of Issue involving alleged criminal activity to OIG 15

**TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) PAGE**

2.4 Evidence 16

Classification of Evidence 16

Types of Evidence 16

Relevancy, Competency, and Hearsay 16

2.5 Collection of Evidence 18

Witness Interview Process 21

Recording and Transcribing 22

The Interview Environment 22

Witness Order 22

Interviewer Skills 23

Influencing Factors 23

Interview Techniques 26

Strategies 27

Types of Questions 28

Witness Credibility 28

3\. Analysis 37

3.1 Introduction 37

3.2 Identify Central Issues and Sub-issues 37

Identify Relevant Standards and Elements 37

Relevance, Quality, and Quantity 38

Credibility of Testimony 39

3.3 When to Terminate the Investigation 40

4\. Preparing the Report of Investigation 42

> **1. ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATIONS**

### Definition: An administrative investigation is an impartial inquiry, authorized by a facility director or higher level manager, to be conducted at any time deemed necessary, to determine facts and collect evidence in connection with a matter in which the VA is or may be a part in interest.

### Authority: The Secretary of Veterans Affairs is responsible for assuring compliance with the laws governing veterans benefits. To assure that the intent of these laws is fulfilled, alleged irregularities in the administration of these laws, and violations of regulations and policies of the department, must be investigated. Though investigations may be ordered in any branch of the VA, provisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs Directive and Handbook 0700 (dated March 25, 2002) addresses when and in what circumstances formal boards of investigation may be required. A facility Director may also authorize an administrative investigation in cases other than those incidents stipulated by agency policy and guidelines.

### Purpose of the Investigation: The purpose of an investigation is to compile factual information upon which to base conclusions, recommendations, actions, or decisions, where no action is supported. Investigations also identify areas for improvement and/or identify system problems, and can preserve and record recollections for future use. Administrative investigations are not appropriate forums for pursuing allegations of criminal conduct, which must be referred to the proper authority in accordance with VA Manual MP-1, Part I, Chapter 16.

### Mandatory Investigations: Certain incidents require mandatory investigations in the VHA, and may prompt investigation in other branches of the VA. Where there are indications of criminal activity, the incidents should be referred to criminal investigators, before a decision is made to initiate an administrative investigation. Mandatory investigations include:

> [Alleged patient abuse]{.underline}: Acts against patients that
> involved physical, psychological, sexual, or verbal abuse. VA
> directives state that the \"intent\" of an employee to abuse is not a
> determinant as to whether an incident meets the categorization
> requirements for patient abuse. However, to sustain charges through
> arbitration or Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) hearings, intent
> often becomes an essential element. The patient\'s perception of how
> he was treated is an essential component of this determination; the
> fact that a given patient has limited or no cognitive ability does not
> exclude the possibility that abuse occurred.
>
> [Deaths]{.underline}: Deaths related to procedure, equipment
> malfunctions, or failure to diagnose;
>
> [Falls]{.underline}: Resulting in patient death;
>
> [Homicide]{.underline}: The death of a patient or staff member
> intentionally caused by a patient, or the death of a patient
> intentionally caused by another individual;
>
> [Medication errors]{.underline}: resulting in serious injury or death;
>
> [Missing Patients]{.underline}: found seriously injured or dead;
>
> [Patient or staff assaults]{.underline}: resulting in serious injury
> or death;
>
> [Patient injury]{.underline} (including medical device-related
> injury): resulting in serious injury or death;
>
> [Sexual Assault]{.underline};
>
> [Transfusion errors]{.underline}: Blood administered to the wrong
> patient; administered when not ordered; etc. that results in serious
> injury or death;
>
> [Sentinel errors]{.underline}: A sentinel event is an adverse event
> that results in the loss of life or limb or permanent loss of
> function. Examples of sentinel events: death resulting from medication
> error, an assault, or suicides by patients who received services from
> the medical facility within the prior 30 days;
>
> [Adverse events]{.underline}: Deemed likely to trigger substantial
> negative publicity;
>
> [Unplanned clinical occurrences]{.underline}: Unplanned clinical
> occurrences are occurrences that result in hospitalization or
> increased hospital stay for more than observation (including, but not
> limited to, injuries resulting from assaults against patients or
> staff, sexual assaults, suicide attempts, patient abuse, fires, falls,
> and medication errors); identified error that could have, but by
> chance did not, result in a sentinel event or an adverse event
> involving hospitalization or increased hospital stay for more than
> observation; unplanned clinical occurrences which may result from
> either acts of commission or omission, e.g., administration of the
> wrong medication or failure to make a timely diagnosis of cancer;
>
> [Potentially compensable events]{.underline}: Such as determined by
> the Chief of Staff.

### Discretionary Investigations or Focused Program Reviews may be conducted when there is a(n):

> [Allegation or complaint]{.underline} regarding an organization having
> involvement with the VA;
>
> [Loss, theft, or destruction]{.underline} of government or personal
> property or funds, once declined for criminal investigation;
>
> [Incident or circumstance]{.underline}, that effects or impact upon
> the efficiency, reputation, or image of the Department, which the
> Director believes should be investigated.

### Focused Reviews: The VHA Patient Safety Improvement Handbook (PSI) lists adverse events, which must be reported to the Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN). A focused review will be conducted for each event. Adverse events are untoward incidents, therapeutic misadventures, iatrogenic injuries or unexpected occurrences that have negative consequences. Sentinel events and unplanned clinical occurrences are the major categories of adverse events. A sentinel event is an adverse event that results in the loss of life or limb or permanent loss of function. Examples of sentinel events: death resulting from medication error, an assault, or suicides by patients who received services from the medical facility within the prior 30 days, and adverse events deemed likely to trigger substantial negative publicity.

### Peer Reviews: Peer reviews provide a practitioner with a timely opinion of a peer concerning:

> [The quality and appropriateness of medical care]{.underline} provided
> a patient when a medical center fails to meet pre-established quality
> assurance criteria, as the result of an unexpectedly adverse patient
> outcome; or
>
> [The Filing of an action in a court]{.underline} of competent
> jurisdiction against the Department of Veterans Affairs and/or a
> medical center as the result of an incidence of alleged medical
> malpractice (tort claim), or
>
> [As requested by competent authority]{.underline}.

### Supervisory Fact Finding: Supervisory fact finding is used for initial gathering of facts associated with a particular incident, usually by collecting individual signed statements. These statements are not sworn. This process may indicate an administrative investigation may become necessary to resolve conflicting statements that will be relied on by the department for further action.

### Potential Applications of an Administrative Investigation Work Product:

> **Administrative**
>
> [Tort Claims]{.underline}: Investigations that look into individual
> events may be used in investigations of tort claims filed against the
> agency.
>
> [Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)]{.underline}: May be used as
> evidence in litigation against the agency.
>
> [Disciplinary Boards]{.underline}: Administrative investigations may
> serve as evidence in support of major adverse actions taken against
> employees.
>
> [Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)]{.underline}: May serve as
> evidence in support of adverse actions taken against employees
>
> [Workers Compensation]{.underline}: May be used as evidence for or
> against a lost time injury claim against the agency.
>
> [Disciplinary Actions]{.underline}: May serve as evidence in support
> of admonishments, reprimands, suspensions, or discharges.
>
> [State Licensing Boards]{.underline}: May serve as basis for reporting
> substandard patient care to an individuals licensing board.
>
> [Clinical Privileges]{.underline}: May serve as the basis for
> reduction or revocation of clinical privileges.
>
> **Criminal Proceedings**
>
> **Reduction and/or Revocation of Privileges**

# THE INVESTIGATION PROCESS:

1.  **Initiation of the Investigation: (The Basics)**

    1.  **Authorization Letter -** Upon determination that an incident
        or allegation should be investigated, the facility director or
        higher level manager, or his/her designee, will prepare a
        memorandum designating the person or persons who will conduct
        the investigation and setting out the matter to be investigated.
        The essential elements of the memorandum are:

> [Assignment/Delegation]{.underline}: The vesting of authority;
>
> [Scope/Charge]{.underline}: Defining the incident/allegation to be
> investigated;
>
> [Report]{.underline}: Establishing a time for completion of the
> investigation report.

2.  **Panel Appointment -** The facility Director, or higher manager, is
    authorized to appoint board members. An investigation may be
    conducted by an individual investigating officer, or an
    investigative board. The subject matter of an investigation often
    determines the composition of the board; members are frequently
    appointed because of their recognized expertise in a specific
    discipline, or need for diversity of input and representation.

3.  **Administration of Oaths -** To be authorized to administer oaths
    and collect evidence, the investigators should be issued VA Form
    4505, or hold a commission as a notary public. Each member of the
    board will be issued this card as signed by the appointing official,
    and is required to turn the card in at the end of the investigation.
    This card should accompany the appointment letter.

4.  **Court Reporter vs. Tape Recording -** The board should consider
    the use of court reporters rather than taping witness interviews. It
    is more costly, but it is also more efficient. It is easier to
    obtain an accurate record with a court reporter and s/he is
    authorized to administer oaths. Also, the transcripts are often word
    indexed and line-numbered and quarter pages can be provided which
    facilitate review in a condensed format.

5.  **Timeliness of Reporting Requirements -** The timeliness of the
    report is as important as the content. When an adverse event is
    reported to the VISN, or headquarters, and a focused review panel or
    a board of investigation is appointed, a specific time is allotted
    for the completion of reports (usually 30 days). The time allotted
    the facility includes the routing of the investigation for reviews
    by the Chief(s) of Staff, Associate/Assistant Director(s), and the
    Medical Center Director. VHA investigations are to be in the hands
    of the Risk Management Coordinator within 30 days from the date of
    an incident.

> An extension may be granted only in unusual circumstances, such as the
> illness of a key witness, etc. Contact must be made with the VISN Risk
> Management Coordinator five days prior to the deadline in order to
> clear such extensions with VA Central Office (VACO). Reasons for the
> delay must be specified. In situations requiring a VISN report,
> facility directors normally require investigative reports be completed
> within 10-15 workdays after interviews are completed.

6.  **Qualified Immunity** from lawsuits is applied to board members who
    have been assigned to make official inquiry into potentially
    damaging information about another individual based on legitimate,
    necessary, need-to-know VA business purposes.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
2.  **The Planning Stage -- Laying the Groundwork:**

    1.  **The Framework --** This stage of the investigation is
        frequently "short-changed", and yet it is considered the most
        important by experienced investigators. It is the skeleton of
        the investigative process. Without its structure the
        investigation can collapse. Panels often feel pressure to get
        the final product to the facility director, or higher
        management, and thus fail to devote the time necessary to
        outline the investigation's issues. Preparatory planning for an
        investigation is a requisite foundation to a successful
        investigation. An investigation that is conducted without a
        clear goal and an orderly compilation of all available and
        needed information will be haphazard, and probably not be
        successful. The following are basic tasks that must be
        accomplished prior to beginning the investigation.

    2.  **Goal -** The primary goal of any investigation should be to
        ascertain the facts pertinent to the incident; what actually
        caused the incident; the outcome of the incident; and what
        actions need to be taken that will improve the probability that
        similar incidents will be prevented in the future.

    3.  **Essential Components:**

> **Objective Fact-Finder -** Investigations are fact-finding processes.
> A panel member's role is that of an objective fact finder.
> Investigator(s), therefore, must remain impartial at all times. The
> final outcome of an investigation can be distorted if personal
> feelings, prejudices, anger and dislikes influence the course of the
> investigation, and the attitude of impartiality is lost. During the
> course of the investigation, if it is found that an investigator may
> have personal and direct knowledge of the matter under investigation,
> or be a potential witness, or have a significant relationship with a
> material witness, the Chairperson should contact the Risk Management
> Coordinator or facility director as an actual or apparent conflict of
> interest may exist. If a union representative is asked to serve on a
> board as a representative of the bargaining unit as a whole, then if
> for any reason the union representative chooses to personally
> represent an employee or witness, s/he should be replace as a board
> member.
>
> **Time Allocation -** Planning should occupy 20-25% of the Board's
> time. A planning session should be conducted before the actual
> investigation begins and then again before the report is written.
>
> **Scope/Charge --** The authorization letter from the director, or
> higher manager, contains the focus of the assignment. The
> investigation should fully explore the issues as set out by the
> authorizing letter, but should not expand beyond that scope. If other
> critical issues arise in the course of investigation, refer to the
> director, or higher manager, for consideration of expansion of the
> board's scope.
>
> **Breaking Down the Board's Charge --** In order to know which
> questions to ask during the interview process, the panel must first
> undertake a preliminary analysis. This analysis consists of identify
> the primary issues, relevant standards, and elements.
>
> **Primary Issues -** Initially, the panel must identify the primary
> issue(s) associated with its charge. A primary issue is the predicate
> question that must be resolved before a decision can be reached, and
> involves the application of specific standards to a factual situation.
> The panel should identify only those relevant issues necessary to
> resolve the problem presented, and should not consider issues outside
> the scope of the presenting charge. Identification of these primary
> issues will direct the questioning format and ultimately, the course
> of the investigation.
>
> **Standards --** After identifying the primary issues, the panel must
> ascertain which standards (rules, regulations, statutes, policies,
> etc.) apply to the given situation. Since the primary issue(s) in an
> investigation is posed by the application of a standard to a set of
> facts, the panel must ascertain all standards that may affect the
> outcome of the investigation. A standard is applicable to a factual
> situation when it so closely corresponds to the situation that it
> affects the rights and responsibilities of the person involved. The
> facts are given importance by the applicable rules, regulations, and
> policies of the agency. The language of the standard is important. If
> it is imprecise, the standard of "reasonableness" should be employed.
>
> **Elements --** Each standard, in turn, is composed of individual
> sub-issues or elements. Elements are related to the application of the
> broader standard and are the basis for determining compliance with the
> standard. The panel's question must be designed to obtain those facts
> that are relevant to the elements.
>
> **Example of Breaking Down an Issue:**
>
> **Scenario -** Employee John Doe works in the Computer Department. One
> day a Gateway computer is missing from the computer lab classroom. Mr.
> Doe's college-aged daughter visited the work site later that day and
> was overheard thanking her father for the loan of the "really keen
> Gateway computer", and saying she would be really careful with it.
> This was reported to the facility director who appointed a board of
> investigation to look into the matter, after a police investigation.
>
> **Issue --** Whether John Doe stole a Gateway computer from the
> computer lab classroom.
>
> **Standard --** Theft is the taking of property, without authority,
> with the intent to permanently deprive the owner.
>
> **Elements --**
>
> Who owned the computer?
>
> Was the computer removed from the premises?
>
> Who took the computer?
>
> Was it taken without permission?
>
> Was it taken with the intent to permanently keep the piece of
> equipment?
>
> **Panel Questions --** Must be designed to obtain responses that will
> address the identified elements. If the panel determines that Mr. Doe
> left a note to his supervisor saying he was "borrowing" the computer
> for twenty-four hours, and would be returning it at 3 p.m. the next
> day, after his daughter completed her overdue term paper, the panel
> would likely conclude that the final element in the standard cannot be
> met. Therefore, while other issues like misappropriation may be
> investigated and proven, the issue of theft cannot be substantiated,
> for the purpose of the administrative investigation.
>
> **Brainstorming --** Part of planning is brainstorming. Before any
> interviews are conducted or any physical evidence is collected, the
> Board members should collectively brainstorm. Think creatively. List
> anything that needs to be done by the Board in order to gather all
> facts and reach a conclusion. List all witnesses that may have
> relevant information. Assemble and review all known prior statements,
> records (including any prior complaints and investigations on the same
> issues), materials, x-rays, lab and pharmacy information, and incident
> reports on the matter. List all additional physical evidence that
> needs to be collected. Understand these lists will probably be
> modified as the investigation evolves. Remember, if the investigation
> is not a Quality Management (QM) investigation, a QM incident report
> would not be an appropriate item, as it is protected by 38 U.S.C.
> 5705.
>
> **Access to Agency Records --** The Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a,
> applies to any VA records about an individual which are retrieved by
> the individual's name or other identifier, regardless of the storage
> media such as paper or computer disk. The Privacy Act prohibits
> disclosure of a record about that individual, which that individual's
> name or other identifier retrieves, unless the Privacy Act
> specifically authorized disclosure. A disclosure occurs when VA
> communicates the record by a means-oral, written or electronic-to
> anyone, either inside or outside the agency, who is not already aware
> of this information. Disclosure violates the Privacy Act unless there
> is prior written consent from the individual by show name the record
> is retrieved, or disclosure without written consent is authorized by
> the Privacy Act. One such authorized disclosure is the EMPLOYEE'S NEED
> TO KNOW. A VA employee who needs access to the record to perform his
> assigned duties may have access to otherwise confidential records.
> Board members should not be denied access to confidential records.
> Board members should not be denied access to relevant VA records.
> Board members acting in their capacity as investigators have a
> "need-to-know" for purposes of an investigation.
>
> **Record Keeping --** Develop a method for organizing and maintaining
> the information collected and reviewed during the course of the
> investigation. One methods of organizing documents for an
> investigation is to prepare individual folders, annotated with the
> name of the witness. These folders should contain the questions to be
> asked, and all documents and other physical evidence related to a
> particular witness. Also include a copy of the employee's rights and
> obligations form to be signed by the witness. Identify one person to
> be responsible for maintaining all of the documentation together in a
> logical sequence.

3.  **Employee Rights, Obligations and other Legal Issues:**

    1.  **Review Laws, Regulations, Policies and Directives -** A review
        of the Laws, regulations, policies or directives bearing on the
        matter to be investigated is essential. Becoming knowledgeable
        of the appropriate legal or policy requirements will give the
        investigator(s) the necessary background information to
        accurately assess whether there is a basis for the allegation.
        Regional Counsel should be consulted whenever the investigation
        involves identification or interpretation of a law or
        regulation. The investigator(s) should review VA policy to
        obtain an understanding of the scope and limitations of their
        investigative authority. It is imperative that the
        investigator(s) become familiar with these limitations to assure
        that boundaries are not exceeded. This guide is based on the
        information contained the policy.

    2.  **Employee Cooperation -** 38 C.F.R. 0.735-12(b) provides that
        employee will furnish information and testify freely and
        honestly in cases respecting employment and disciplinary
        matters. Refusal to testify, concealment of material facts, or
        willfully inaccurate testimony in connection with an
        investigation or hearing may be grounds for disciplinary action.
        An employee, however, will not be required to give testimony
        against him or herself in any matter in which there is
        indication that he or she may be or is involved in a violation
        of criminal law. As provided in VA Directive 0700, all employees
        will be provided with a statement fully informing them of their
        rights and obligations before the interview begins. Receipt of
        this statement will be acknowledged both by signature and
        verbally in the testimony. Even if an employee who is the focal
        point of the investigation resigns you must complete the
        investigation, unless its assignment is withdrawn. If an
        employee refuses to cooperate with a Board on the record, take
        the following steps:

> a\. Remind him/her that s/he has signed a statement acknowledging
> his/her legal responsibility to provide such information; and
>
> b\. Make the following statement to the employee: ***"Your refusal to
> cooperate with this board has been noted for the record and will be
> reported immediately to the Director and you may be subject to
> disciplinary action. You are dismissed from this hearing but are
> subject to recall."*** Conclude the testimony as you would for any
> other witness.

3.  **Self-incrimination --** An employee has the right to decline
    answering question during an agency investigation if s/he reasonably
    believes that her/his testimony might lead to criminal prosecution
    of her/himself. S/He asserts her/his right against
    self-incrimination by claiming the Fifth Amendment. This is a
    personal right available only to the person asserting to for
    her/himself. The employee must state that s/he declines to answer
    because it may incriminate her/him.

> a\. Employees do not have the right to refuse to answer questions on
> the grounds that is might incriminate a person other than herself or
> himself. An employee must answer reasonable non-incriminating
> questions or be subject o the disciplinary action. Employees also can
> not pick and choose which criminal issues they wish to answer and
> assert their right to remain silent on others. Once that right is
> asserted, it applies to all further questioning on that issue.
> However, they can respond to any remaining non-criminal matter. The
> term 'employee' includes all medical residents acting within the scope
> of their employment at a VA medical center.
>
> b\. If, anytime during the interview of a witness, there is an
> indication that s/he is involved in a violation of criminal law and
> possibility of self-incrimination exists, the investigator(s) must
> stop the interview and advise the Director, or higher management, of
> this development.

4.  **Retaliatory Actions -** As needed, a witness should be assured
    that s/he will not be subject to retaliatory measures for giving
    testimony or otherwise cooperating with the investigation. Any
    alleged retaliatory measures should be reported to the
    investigator(s) or the Director, or higher management. The rights
    and protection of witnesses should be covered in your opening
    statement.

5.  **Right to Representation -** As provide in VA Directive 0700 and VA
    Handbook 0700, March 25, 2002, anyone required to give sworn
    testimony in an investigation has the right to representation during
    the interview process. At the time the employee is called to
    testify, it is recommended that s/he should be informed of the
    general topic and scope of the investigation and their right to have
    representation present during the proceedings. The arrangements and
    expenses for obtaining a personal representative are the
    responsibility of the employee. It should be noted that if a
    representative becomes a part of the investigation, s/he may no
    longer act as a representative. Personal representative act in an
    advisory capacity. Questions may only be answered by the witness,
    and if at any time it appears as thought the representative is
    interfering with or delaying the proceedings, the representative may
    be required to retire from the proceedings.

> **Refusal to Answer --** VA Employees are required by 38 CFR
> 0.735-12(b) and by VA Directive 0700 to cooperate and provide
> testimony in administrative investigations, subject to the
> constitutional right against compulsory self-incrimination. If a
> representative advises the employee not to answer, the representative
> should be advised that disciplinary action can be taken against the
> employee for failure to answer. This obligation to answer does not
> necessarily apply if the employee being interviewed is suspected of
> criminal conduct and is asserting his Fifth Amendment rights.
>
> **Disrupting Behavior --** If the representative attempts to engage in
> this type of conduct, the representative should be advised that he/she
> will be asked to leave if he/she continues to interfere. If the
> representative persists, then he/she should be told to leave. The
> employee should be given the opportunity to obtain another
> representative.
>
> **Preparation by Representative --** It is VA policy to permit the
> employee a reasonable opportunity to consult with a representative.
> However, a representative who is representing more than one employee
> in an investigation should not be allowed to relay the testimony of
> earlier witnesses.

6.  **Union Representation:**

> Article 21 of the current AFGE union contract provides that employees
> have the right to be represented in a formal investigation, or while
> being required to provide a written or sworn statement. The contract
> further provides that if an employee is the subject of an
> investigation, the employee will be informed of the right to union
> representation prior to being questioned or being asked to give a
> statement. As exclusive representative, the union shall be given the
> opportunity to be present at any examination of an employee in the
> bargaining unit by a representative of the Department in connection
> with an investigation if:
>
> \(a\) The employee reasonable believes that the examination may result
> in disciplinary action against the employee, and
>
> \(b\) The unit employee requests representation.
>
> **Right/Role of Union Representative -** A union representative has
> the right to take an "active part" in an investigatory interview. This
> includes the right to: confer privately with the employee prior to
> answering questions; having questions clarified prior to answering;
> commenting on the form of the question prior to answering; and
> objecting to possible infringements of the employee's rights.
>
> The Representative may not:
>
> \(1\) Ask questions of the board;
>
> \(2\) Answer on behalf of the employee;
>
> \(3\) Dictate answers or take charge of proceedings;
>
> \(4\) Impede or frustrate the purpose of the investigation;
>
> \(5\) Object to questions; or
>
> \(6\) Demand surrender of documents being used by the board.
>
> **Employee Representative -** If a representative is also an employee,
> the same conduct rules govern her/him as govern employees generally.
> So, just as any other employee, the union representative would have to
> answer all questions honestly. Attempting to force a union
> representative to tell what s/he has learned in a representative
> capacity may have unfair labor practice consequences for management,
> though, so legal advice should be sought in these circumstances. If
> the investigation is over a serious matter and there is reason to
> believe a union representative has information that would be
> essential, the representative can be required to answer questions, but
> the union may file an unfair labor practice (ULP). The question would
> then be whether management's action has a "chilling effect "on the
> exercise of rights protected under the Labor Management Relations
> Statute. If the circumstances are critical enough, management may
> determine that the representative's confidentiality is outweighed by
> the importance of successfully determining the facts for necessary
> action. (It should be understood that, while no VA employee is
> "Exempt" form the requirement to testify openly and honestly, union
> representatives should not be specifically sought our for questioning
> just to see what they may know. A direct and material connection
> should be evident.) Regional Counsel should be consulted in these
> types of circumstances.
>
> **Time to Obtain a Union Representative -** An investigator must wait
> a reasonable period of time for a union representative once the
> employee has requested one. What is reasonable depends on the
> circumstances and on whether a delay would interfere with the conduct
> of the investigation. If the conduct of the investigation would be
> compromised by the delay, inform the employee of this and ask the
> employee if an alternative representative can be obtained; if not,
> proceed.
>
> **Responsibility of Union Representatives** - The VA-AFGE Master
> Agreement, states that "supervisors, employees, and union
> representative will not, except as specifically authorized, disclose
> any information about an investigation." Thus, union representatives
> may not tell others generally what they have learned about the
> investigation, nor may they disclose information, gained in a
> representative capacity, to other employees who are going to be
> questions. A union representative may be required to reveal
> information relevant to the investigation even when it has been gained
> by the representative in his/her representative capacity, as discussed
> earlier.
>
> **There may be local agreements that must be adhered to on a
> case-by-case basis.**

7.  **Release of Information -** Generally, VA confidentiality statutes
    do not protect documents generated by administrative boards unless
    the Director specifically designates the investigation as a focused
    review. If the Director determines that a 38 U.S.C. § 5705
    QA-protected investigation is to be conducted; this must be
    indicated at the outset of the investigation by designating it as a
    focused review. Then, VA QA statutes and regulations, 38 U.S.C. §
    5705, and 38 C.F.R. § 17.500-511 protect the investigation from
    release. In non-QA situations, all information including testimony,
    developed during an investigation in regard to patient incident
    review may be available to the veteran and/or family members and
    lawyers representing the veteran and/or family. This information,
    including testimony, may be disclosed during litigation or
    proceedings on claims for benefits. It is subject to the Freedom of
    the Information Act, the Privacy Act and 38 U.S.C. § 5701 and 7332
    constraints. Although Administrative Investigations are not
    specifically protected by statute, depending on who is requesting
    the Administrative Investigation, it, or portions thereof, may be
    exempt from release under FOIA exception B(5), the Deliberative
    Process, or B(6), Clearly Unwarranted Invasion of Privacy. Only the
    Release of Information Officer has authority to release any
    information regarding the investigation, and all requests should be
    forwarded to them. If necessary, Regional Counsel should be
    consulted to assist in making this determination. Should a decision
    to release the Administrative Investigation be made, all documents
    released must have patient-related information redacted/deleted from
    the document prior to release. Remember, only the Release of
    Information Officer can release investigative documents. This,
    however, does not apply to an individual's own testimony.

8.  **Release of Individual Testimony -** The Statement of Employee
    Rights and Obligations stipulates that an individual has the right
    to a copy of their edited and signed testimony. However, testimony
    should not be released during the course of the board proceedings.
    Chairpersons are instructed to inform witnesses that boards will
    only release transcripts after all witnesses have been interviewed.

9.  **Degrees of Proof Required -** Too often investigators conclude
    that because proof beyond a reasonable doubt can not be established,
    no corrective action can be supported. Beyond a reasonable doubt is
    the standard required for criminal conviction. By law, regulation
    and practice, lower degrees of proof are applied in administrative
    matters.

+--------------------------+---------------------+---------------------+
| **EVIDENCE STANDARD**    | **APPLICATION**     | **DEFINITION**      |
+--------------------------+---------------------+---------------------+
| Beyond reasonable Doubt  | Criminal            | Total Agreement     |
+--------------------------+---------------------+---------------------+
| Clear and Convincing     | Punitive Damages;   | High degree of      |
|                          |                     | certainty,          |
|                          | Intention harm;     | compelling evidence |
|                          | Whistleblower       |                     |
|                          | reprisal response   |                     |
+--------------------------+---------------------+---------------------+
| Preponderance            | Misconduct Actions; | More likely true    |
|                          | tort claims         | than not, 51%       |
+--------------------------+---------------------+---------------------+
| Substantial              | Performance Cases   | One reasonable      |
|                          |                     | person might agree, |
|                          |                     | even if others      |
|                          |                     | might disagree      |
+--------------------------+---------------------+---------------------+
| Just Cause               | Union Contract      | Legitimate provable |
|                          |                     | reason; for         |
|                          |                     | discipline not      |
|                          |                     | arbitrary or        |
|                          |                     | capricious          |
+--------------------------+---------------------+---------------------+
| Good Faith               | Investigations      | Conducted fairly    |
|                          |                     | and objectively;    |
|                          |                     | reasonable          |
|                          |                     | conclusion; fact    |
|                          |                     | based               |
+--------------------------+---------------------+---------------------+

10. **Referral of Issues Involving Alleged Criminal Activity --** When
    planning or conducting an administrative board of investigation, you
    may receive allegations or other indications of criminal activity.
    When this occurs, Department policy requires that you stop inquiries
    at this point and promptly report the matter to the appropriate
    authority.

> The Inspector General Act assigns responsibility to the VA Office of
> Inspector General (OIG) to detect and investigate fraud within VA
> programs and operations. Fraud includes acts of deceit, trickery,
> concealment, or breach of confidence that are used to gain some unfair
> or dishonest advantage. Bit rigging, defective pricing, over billing,
> and false claims are examples of procurement fraud. Benefits-related
> frauds include fiduciary fraud, compensation and pension fraud, loan
> origination fraud, and home equity skimming. Healthcare-related fraud
> includes illegal receipt of medical services and improper fee basis
> fillings. Still more areas of fraud include workers compensation
> fraud, travel voucher fraud, and false statement by both staff and
> beneficiaries. In addition to fraud, VA OIG also has responsibility to
> investigate theft and diversion of drugs purchased by VA.

4.  **Evidence**

    1.  **Classification of Evidence:**

> **Direct evidence** is that which proves the existence of the main
> fact without any inference of presumption. It is direct when those who
> have acquired actual personal knowledge of them swear to the very
> facts in dispute.
>
> **Circumstantial evidence** is that which tends to prove the principal
> fact by inference. The use of circumstantial evidence is recognized as
> a legitimate means of proof and involves proving material facts which,
> when considered in their relationship to each other, tend to establish
> the existence of the main fact. It is the only type of evidence
> generally available to show malice, intent, or motive, which exist
> only in the mind of the perpetrator of the deed. Circumstantial
> evidence includes fingerprints and DNA. It can be afforded lesser,
> equal or greater weight than direct evidence.

2.  **Types of Evidence:**

> **Testimony**
>
> **Real evidence** is evidence furnished by a thing itself, such as a
> broken chair. This type of evidence is said to "speak for itself."
>
> **Documentary evidence** is evidence supplied by writing and
> documents.

3.  **Relevancy, Competency and Hearsay:** While ABIs are not bound by
    these rules they should be considered as the panel's work product
    may be a foundation for further legal efforts

> **Introduction --** The collected evidence should be relevant and
> competent. Hearsay evidence can be considered in ABIs. It just might
> be carefully weighted in the final analysis. Direct source
> verification should be obtained if at all possible. Besides collecting
> evidence appropriate to support findings and recommendations, boards
> are permitted to seek and utilize information as investigative leads,
> even when the competency of information may not be established.
>
> **Relevancy --** If a fact offered in evidence relates in some logical
> way to the main fact, it is relevant. The word relevant implies a
> traceable and significant connection. A fact need not bear directly on
> the principal fact. It is sufficient if it constitutes one link in a
> chain of evidence or that it relates to facts which would constitute
> circumstantial evidence that a fact in issue did not did not exist. On
> fact is logically relevant to another if, taken by itself or in
> connection with other facts, it proves (or disproves) or tends to
> prove (or disprove) the existence of the other fact. If the fact is
> logically relevant, it is also legally relevant, unless it is barred
> by some rule of evidence. The principle question to be resolved in
> determining relevancy is: Would the evidence by helpful to the finder
> of the fact in resolving the issue?
>
> **Competency --** The terms relevant and competent are not synonymous.
> In a court of law evidence must not only be logically relevant and
> sufficiently persuasive but also legally admissible, in other words,
> competent. Relevant evidence may be incompetent and hence inadmissible
> because of such reasons as the hearsay rule, the "best evidence" rule
> or violation of the Constitution, e.g. a confession involuntarily
> obtained or tangible evidence illegally seized.
>
> **Hearsay --** Hearsay has been defined, in non-legal terms, as
> evidence which does not come from the personal knowledge of the
> witness but from repetition of what he has heard others say happened
> at an earlier time. Hearsay is not limited to only the verbal, but may
> also be in a written form. The key is that it is not from a direct
> source, but an indirect one.
>
> **Verbal Acts --** Hearsay is considered less reliable because you are
> trying to prove something is true through someone with no first-hand
> knowledge. If all a party is trying to prove is that the words were
> "spoken", rather than that they were "true", there is not hearsay
> problem. Any person who heard the words spoken would be an "ear
> witness" and, hence, would have first-hand knowledge. The words that
> the witness is testifying to hearing are called "verbal acts".
>
> **Admissions --** An admission is not hearsay. An admission is any
> statement or act of a "party" which is offered in evidence against
> him. It may also be defined as prior oral or written statement or act
> of a "party" which is inconsistent with his current position.
>
> **Confessions --** A confession is a statement that is communicated to
> another person, wherein the individual acknowledges guild and
> discloses the circumstances of the act or the share and participation
> in it. It may be made orally or in writing.
>
> **Exceptions --** Certain other types of statements are considered
> classified as hearsay, but are admissible because under the
> circumstances, the information is felt to be trustworthy and reliable.
> Those most commonly seen in Administrative Investigation situations
> are:
>
> **Excited Utterances --** A statement relating to a startling event or
> condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement
> caused by the event or condition is admissible. The trustworthiness of
> such statements lies in their spontaneity, for the occurrence must be
> startling enough o produce a spontaneous and unreflected utterance
> without time to contrive or misrepresent.
>
> **Recorded Recollection --** On some occasions, a witness to an event
> will not be able to remember what s/he saw or heard. If a memorandum
> or record was made at the time of the event, or soon there after, then
> the matter was fresh in the writer's memory, and the witness can swear
> that it accurately reflects what s/he perceived.
>
> **Business Records --** Business records are considered to be
> trustworthy principally because those with personal knowledge are
> under a strict and continuing duty to make accurate records.

5.  **Collection of Evidence:**

    1.  **Admissions:**

> **Oral --** An example is a spontaneous utterance "I can't believe I
> did that." There are many problems associated with this type of
> admission. Individuals frequently attempted to withdraw, alleging they
> were obtained under duress. Often they are reported by a third party,
> and what is heard is often not what was said. They are made in the
> heat of the moment, and a listener's memory is not always accurate in
> such a situation. Also, the listener may have bias, and consequently,
> reliability may be a problem.
>
> **Written --** Written statements are often available. Their format
> may vary from Reports of Contact (ROCs) to police investigation
> reports. An investigator must realize the importance of WHO AUTHORED
> the DOCUMENT. Was the report written by the individual making the
> actual statement, or is the document authored by someone who is
> reporting what s/he heard an individual say? Frequently, witnesses
> allege a report was not "voluntarily" submitted, but was "request" by
> a supervisor.

2.  **Physical Evidence --** Physical evidence is the most overlooked
    type of evidence by boards of investigation. Of the three types of
    evidence, it is the least corruptible, if preserved properly. There
    are four essential steps to building a wall of physical evidence.
    First, prior to interviewing witnesses, it is imperative that the
    panel identifies all sources of physical evidence. When physical
    evidence is properly collected and preserved, it is difficult to
    impeach it. Below is a checklist of some potential sources:

> Computers
>
> Telephones
>
> Original writings
>
> Medical records
>
> Log sheets
>
> Emails
>
> Head Nurse assignment sheets
>
> Time and attendance records
>
> Pharmacy run sheets
>
> Work orders and bio-med repair records
>
> Order forms
>
> Police reports
>
> Engineering blue prints
>
> Reports of contact
>
> Duty rosters
>
> Supervisory notes
>
> AOD reports
>
> Committee minutes
>
> Training records
>
> Photographs
>
> Congressional records
>
> Patient advocate reports
>
> "alerts"
>
> Pens, staplers
>
> Scissors
>
> Calendars
>
> Envelopes
>
> Postmarks
>
> Clothing
>
> **Handling and Securing Physical Evidence** - All documents, objects
> and substances should be collected as soon as possible. The evidence
> must be properly preserved as evidence. Each piece of physical
> evidence should be isolated and put into sealed plastic bags,
> envelopes, or sterile bottles, according to the type of evidence.
> Investigators should either take original documents into possession or
> make a certified copy. To make a certified copy, the investigator
> annotates the back of the copy to indicate the location of the
> original, the date the copy was made, an attestation that the copy is
> a true and accurate copy of the original and his/her signature.
>
> Finally, the investigator should record the source, location, and date
> of collection for each piece of evidence. When there is the
> possibility of a tort claim or a criminal referral, a "chain of
> custody" for each item should be established. Every person having
> access to our handling a piece of physical evidence, from the time it
> is discovered until the case is adjudicated, becomes a link in the
> chain of evidence and my be required to give testimony at some future
> date. These items should be placed in envelopes containing lines for
> date and signature documentation. The custody or chain of evidence
> should be as limited as possible and there should be no intermingling
> of items of evidence. All evidence should be secured. It should be
> noted that the investigative filed itself can be a piece of evidence
> and should never be left unattended.
>
> The Property Custody Record Tag has been specifically designed for
> maintaining a chain of custody and should be used for this purpose
> whenever applicable. The Chief of VA Police Department should be
> contacted for technical advice and assistance in maintaining a proper
> chain of custody and identifying items of evidence. The government may
> desire to utilize a given piece of evidence in a subsequent criminal
> or civil proceeding. A broken chain of custody may result in a piece
> of evidence being inadmissible.
>
> **Establishing Physical Setting and Location** - If the investigation
> involves a particular site, obtain the blueprints for the area and
> personally visit the site at the same time of day as the involved
> incident. Take a measuring tape. In an interview, a witness may
> testify s/he viewed a certain matter, but the panel may discover when
> they visit the site a support column blocks the view from the nurses
> desk. Take notes during the walk through -- do not rely on memory.
> Where appropriate, such as broken bed railings, mislabeled equipment,
> and view disparities, photographs should be taken. All photographs
> should be identified, dated, timed, and signed by the photographer and
> developer. Where indicated, include a scale device. Consider video
> taping. Any drawings or blueprints should be labeled with the specific
> location, the date, time, investigation title, the name of the
> preparer, lighting conditions, direction orientation, and distance
> measurements. Witnesses making drawings or diagrams should date and
> sign or initial them. The general progression of sketches is:
>
> Lay out perimeter
>
> Identify fixed objects
>
> Identify any pertinent evidence
>
> Record measurements
>
> Identify direction, legend, etc.
>
> **Documentary Evidence** - Investigations sometimes involve
> unidentified handwritings, anonymous typed notes, mechanical
> impressions, and photocopies. With today's scientific advancements,
> writers can be positively and reliable identified, typewriters of
> origin can be pinpointed, photocopies can be linked to the machines
> producing them, voiceprints can be lifted from erased tape recordings,
> and deleted computer entries can be recovered. Ask every witness if
> they have any notes, diaries, calendars, etc. Have them produce the
> originals. Failure to provide documents/physical evidence is treated
> the same as failure to testify, and is subject to discipline. The FBI
> Handbook of Forensic Science suggests the following guidelines for
> identifying specimens:
>
> **Handwriting Examinations:**

(1) Reproduce the original conditions as closely as possible. Obtain
    writing in the same wording, names, signatures, and writing style
    (cursive or printed) as the questioned writing.

(2) Approximate writing speed, slant, size of writing, size of paper,
    and writing instrument.

(3) Obtain samples from dictation until you believe normal writing has
    been produced.

(4) Do not allow the writing to see the questioned writing.

(5) Remove each page from sights as it is completed.

(6) Do not give instructions in spelling, punctuation, or arrangement or
    writing.

(7) Use similar writing media, that is similar size paper, similar forms
    such as check forms, and similar writing instrument. Always get at
    least some of the samples with a ball-point pen.

(8) If the questioned writing is extended writing, such as a threatening
    letter, obtain the full text word for word at least three times.
    Signatures and less extensive writings, such as checks, should be
    repeated then to twenty times. The known samples should correspond
    to the questioned writing as to style: cursive (written longhand),
    upper-case printing or lower-case printing.

(9) It is recommended that you also submit genuine signatures of the
    victim of a forgery.

(10) Advise the writer to speed up, slow down, or alter slant, as
     appropriate, if writing does not appear to be normal. Consider
     having the writer provide some writing with the awkward hand.

(11) Writer and witness should initial and date each page

(12) It is advisable to submit samples of undictated writing from
     sources such as employment records, correspondence, canceled
     checks, and court documents in addition to the dictated samples.

> Remember, Official Personnel Folders, payroll files, and other records
> usually contain spontaneously written samples. It is helpful to the
> analysis to have several original samples made over time.
>
> **Photocopier Examinations --** Photocopiers can be identified with
> the machine producing them, provided that the samples and questioned
> copies are relatively contemporaneous. Procedure for obtaining samples
> from a suspect machine:
>
> \- Make nine copies of a piece of paper with some writing or print on
> it. Make nine copies of a blank sheet of paper. Make nine copies with
> no paper on the glass and the cover down.
>
> \- Two sets of questioned photocopies can be identified as having been
> produced on the same machine. Possible brands or manufacturers can be
> determined by comparison with the reference file.
>
> **Computers**
>
> \- Check and see how much authority you have to do search; don't
> remove yourself.
>
> \- Have a computer person sequester information and all equipment.
>
> \- Remove witnesses access and verify code if necessary.
>
> \- Check and see if witness can access from home.

1.  **Witness Interview Process:**

> **Introduction --** The interview process is the most integral part of
> an administrative investigation. The ultimate goal is to discover what
> really happened. An interview is a conversation with a purpose; the
> interviewer is convincing an individual to tell him/her what they know
> about a certain issue.
>
> Obtaining information about the matter under investigation from
> employees, patients, and visitors is an important and often difficult
> task. Conducting an interview is, in part, an art, which requires
> thoughtful preparation. Interview skills are necessary to elicit the
> desired information from persons having direct or indirect knowledge
> of an incident. These skills must also be applied to controlling the
> witness during the interview process.
>
> Effective fact finding will be predicated on active listening and good
> questioning skills. The following are key elements of those skills;
> motivational concepts, what to ask, how to ask it, how to distinguish
> hearsay from fact, how to develop skills to have your witness
> elaborate and clarify key points, and how to identify the fabricating
> witness.
>
> The manner in which an interview is conducted often influences the
> information obtained; proceedings that are too informal tend to
> ramble, while ones that are too rigid often frighten the witnesses.
> The best advice is to be respectful and courteous to the witness; help
> them to feel comfortable, explain the proceedings, put them at ease,
> and then, proceed.
>
> **Recording and Transcribing Testimony --** VA policy requires that
> "complete testimony" be obtained, transcribed, reviewed, and
> corrected. This required that testimony be taped recorded, or a court
> reporter be retained. Witnesses are not allowed to tape record
> proceedings. They will have an opportunity to have a copy of their
> transcript at the conclusion of the proceeding.
>
> If a tape recorder is used, the following procedures should be
> employed:

(1) Test the tape recorder and make sure it is in good working order.

(2) Always take an extension cord to the interview site.

(3) Always use new tapes.

(4) Always use new batteries.

(5) Always place the machine an equal distance between the interviewer
    and the subject.

(6) Record the make, model and serious number.

(7) On the record always:

    a.  Identify yourself and all present individuals.

    b.  Provide the date.

    c.  Identify the location.

    d.  List time using military hours.

    e.  Use the tape counter to highlight critical points on your notes.

(8) At the end of the tape:

    a.  Break inside tab.

    b.  Initial and date cassette.

    c.  Make copy and never use original again.

    d.  Keep original in locked file.

> **The Interview Environment --** All interviews should take place in
> the panel's "home court." The panel must have a stationary assigned
> room. Do not interview witnesses in their offices or assigned work
> areas. Greet the witness outside the room and walk into the interview
> room ahead of them. This small action helps establish authority. The
> environment should be as sterile as possible. If possible, the panel
> should sit in a position that allows observation of the witness. There
> should be a rapport-building phase: thank the witness for coming and
> briefly discuss the non-controversial subject like the weather. Next,
> remind the witness why s/he has been called, "we are conducting an
> inquiry." DO not give an extensive explanation. Remember that you want
> the witness to do the talking.
>
> **Witness Order --** After identifying a list of witnesses, some
> authorities recommend that the interviewing panel should then identify
> them as "friendly", "neutral", or "hostile". This can be accomplished
> by identifying their relationship to the case and any existing biases.
> Normally, friendly witnesses are interviewed first, followed by
> neutral and then hostile witnesses. When interviewing adversarial
> witnesses, start with the weakest link or the one who may "cut a
> deal," and consequently provide the most information.

(1) Decide in which order to interview friendly witnesses.

    a.  Consider the relationship of each witness to the complaining
        witness and to the other witnesses.

    b.  Interview the most important corroborating friendly witnesses
        first -- if they do not corroborate, the plan needs to change.

    c.  Conduct interviews in such a way that each builds on the
        previous one, or so that is becomes increasingly difficult for
        any witness to depart from the truth.

    d.  Make sure that each witness identifies other potential witnesses
        or sources of evidence and incorporate them in your plan.

    e.  Return to the complaining witness or other witnesses to clarify
        discrepancies or new information.

    f.  Analyze the "friendly" evidence you have obtained.

(2) Decide in which order to interview neutral witnesses and follow the
    same sequence as above to with friendly witnesses.

(3) Decide in what order to interview adverse witnesses.

    a.  Usually, the subject of the investigation should be interviewed
        last. Depart from this principle only for a very good reason.
        Otherwise, the investigator may be giving up the important
        interviewing advantage of superior knowledge.

    b.  It is most important with adverse witnesses to have each
        witness' testimony build upon that of the next and to keep the
        adverse witnesses from learning what evidence has already been
        obtained. To increase the likelihood that adverse witnesses will
        testify truthfully, put each in a position of not knowing what
        the panel already knows. This forces each witness to guess about
        what is known and to take a risk of being caught lying.

> **Interviewer Skills --**
>
> **General characteristics** -- Investigations are fact-finding
> processes and, as such, a panel members' role is that of an objective
> fact-finder. Investigator(s), therefore, must remain impartial at all
> times. The final outcome of an investigation can be distorted if
> personal feelings, prejudices, anger and dislikes influence the course
> of the investigation and the attitude of impartiality is lost. During
> the course of the investigation, if it is found that an investigator
> may have personal and direct knowledge of the matter under
> investigation, or be a potential witness, the Chairperson should
> contact the Administrative Investigation Coordinator of Facility
> Director.
>
> Remember, a union representative assigned to a board is not there to
> represent the employee. If for any reason the Union member chooses to
> represent an employee or witness, they should be replace as a Board
> member.
>
> An interviewer must never lie to the witness. The litmus test is
> ETHICS. Always remember the investigative work product may eventually
> undergo judicial analysis.
>
> An interviewer is a sponge. However, unlike a sponge, which simply
> soaks up the information, an effective interviewer must possess a vast
> inventory of skills. S/he must be: flexible, neutral, persistent,
> patient, empathetic, organized, self-confident without arrogance,
> courteous, authoritative without haughtiness, professional appearing,
> a good listener, and honest.
>
> Frequently, investigative panels **DO NOT LISTEN** because they're too
> busy asking questions. Effective listening can establish rapport with
> the witness, make the witness feel heard, understood (but not judged),
> motivated, and **ALLOWS THE PANEL TO ADJUST QUESTIONING AS
> NECESSARY**. There are two primary classifications of listening,
> passive and active.
>
> **Passive listening** includes:

-   [Silence/Pause(s)]{.underline} -- Message I'm listening -- go ahead
    at your speed.

-   [Non-Committal Acknowledgments]{.underline} -- "what else
    happened", - "tell me some more about that".

> **Active listening** is more participatory and includes:

-   [Reflective]{.underline} -- mirrors back essence of what was said.
    "So the unit was full and you were on divert."

-   [Paraphrasing]{.underline} -- Leaders + Facts + Feelings -- "It
    sounds like the staff was feeling overwhelmed because you got five
    new ER patients within a 30 minute time frame."

-   [Summarizing]{.underline} -- "so let me see if I have this correct.
    Mr. Black called in sick, Ms. Brown was on vacation, Mr. Green was
    called to his son's school, and Mr. Red's car had a flat timer so
    you had fifty veterans waiting to be seen and no one else to see
    them."

-   [Reframing]{.underline} -- Moving from position to interest. -- "It
    sounds like the staff was feeling overwhelmed because you got five
    new ER patients within a 30 minute time frame. You're afraid this
    chaos may influence your performance evaluation, due next week, and
    you won't get the promotion you applied for."

> **Influencing Factors -** It is important to remember there are many
> factors which can enhance, or conversely, inhibit the success of an
> interview. Keeping these concepts in mind can aid in discovering the
> true facts.
>
> **Inhibitors to Accurate Testimony:**
>
> **Ego-threat** -- Individuals withhold information they perceive as
> threatening to their self-esteem. They may be embarrassed or feel
> guilty about something. If asked questions about their conduct, they
> may hesitate because they don't want the listener to think poorly
> about them.
>
> **Case-threat --** To the extent a witness identifies with a party
> they may be subject to this phenomenon. They hesitate to say anything
> that could be interpreted as harmful.
>
> **Role Expectations --** The behavior is seen in two arenas. First,
> witnesses, depending on their job classification, may view themselves
> as dominant or subordinate and not as sharing responsibility for an
> action. Second, a witness may have a set of expectations as to what
> subject to not. If a topic the witness feels is important is not
> discussed, the witness may assume consciously or intuitively that the
> subject is not important.
>
> **Etiquette Barrier --** A witness may be willing to share information
> with some individuals, but not others. A witness may consider a
> subject taboo secondary to sex, race, or position.
>
> **Trauma --** A witness may avoid a subject because of their desire to
> avoid experiencing a prior event.
>
> **Greater Need --** A witness is concerned with a subject primary to
> the witness, so s/he can't concentrate on the panel's focus.
>
> **Facilitators to Accurate Testimony:**
>
> **Empathy-**Non-judgmental understanding, not advice-giving or
> analysis. Individuals do not respond to psychoanalysis, or advice on
> how to change or ignore certain feelings.
>
> Example: "I understand how hard it is to remember everything, but
> maybe if you close your eyes and try to visualize the scene you can
> tell us about..."
>
> **Fulfilling Expectations --** An individual will respond to another's
> expectations. This is a manifestation of the human tendency to conform
> and to respond to individuals of higher status.
>
> Example: "Being a VA employee for twenty years I expect you know a
> great deal about how the floor really functions and we really need
> your help."
>
> **Recognition --** Motivates witnesses to be more cooperative and
> open.
>
> Example: "You really do a good job of outlining the chronological
> sequence."
>
> **Altruistic Appeal --** Witnesses can identify with something beyond
> immediate self-interest.
>
> Example: "As you know, there is a significant amount of narcotics not
> accounted for. Patients are not getting their pain relief. I'm sure
> you want to help us discover the truth about this matter."
>
> **Extrinsic Reward --** Participation satisfies needs external to the
> interview.
>
> Example: Participation identifies exemplary analytical skills, which
> are recalled when individual applies for A.M. position.
>
> **Purpose of the Interview Questions --** It is essential that the
> investigation board remembers that for every piece of disputed
> evidence, there should be a factual finding. The purpose of the
> interview is to obtain relevant facts. Relevant facts are those that
> are important to deciding the previously identified ultimate issues.
> They are outcome determinative. Therefore, the panel's questions must
> be designed to obtain the facts that will answer the applicable
> standard's elements.
>
> **Interviewing Techniques --** Interviewing techniques vary, depending
> upon the facts, circumstances, and witnesses. The following
> suggestions should be considered as techniques to elicit the best,
> most reliable information.

-   All questions asked during the interview must be directed toward
    discovering the answers to "who, what, when, where, why, and how."

-   Avoid beginning an interview with specific questions, as they may
    inhibit the witness. The witness may feel that only those items
    mentioned are pertinent.

-   The first set of questions should establish the witness' title,
    experience, education (where appropriate) and job-related duties for
    the record.

-   The second set of questions should establish the witness' knowledge
    of the event(s) under investigation. Elicit a description of the
    scene first; then the related action. Asking an open-ended question
    allow the witness to tell their rendition of events. Once the person
    has completely related their narrative, specific questions may be
    asked to clarify specific points and gather additional information.

-   Compound questions are confusing and should be avoided.

-   Problems arise when asking questions that are answered by a simple
    yes or no. This limits the witness to answering only specific
    questions, and in many instances the witness has a tendency to
    answer affirmatively just to be agreeable. They are appropriate in
    limited situations.

-   Keep the format simple and carefully choose the language as word
    choice can affect an answer.

-   Actual interview -- If an investigation addresses specific events,
    inquire in all events during the relevant time frame in
    chronological blocks of time. For each block ask, who, what, when,
    where, why and how:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Who was present?

-   Who said what?

-   What preceded the event?

-   What happened?

-   What other information do they have?

-   What is the source of the information?

-   When did each event occur?

-   How did it occur?

-   Was it avoidable?

-   Who else has information?

-   The investigators should also determine the following:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Is the witness biased or prejudiced?

-   What is the motive for exaggeration or distortion?

-   Are there lapses or failures in memory?

-   What deficiencies existed in the witness' opportunity for
    observation?

-   Why are prior statements in conflict with current testimony?

-   Who has the witness talked to about this event, what was said, when?

-   Has anyone tried to "coach" him?

-   What was said?

-   Who said it?

-   When was it said?

-   Why did it happen?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Always ask if there is any other information they have about the
    situation that they believe could be significant.

-   Don't tell one witness what another specific witness said.

-   Always maintain control.

-   Don't discuss personal opinions or conclusions.

-   Don't make accusatory statements.

-   Have the witness explain terms and phrases.

-   Resolve contradictions.

> **Closing Phase** -- At the end of every interview, bolster the
> witness, whether they are friendly or hostile. This can be
> accomplished by employing the following statements:

-   **"**Is there anything else I should ask you that I haven't?"

-   "Anything else I need to know?"

-   "If you have any doubts, is there anything else you think you should
    tell me?"

-   Remind the witness "it's for the record."

-   "Certainly you appreciate that this matter may go to a higher level.
    Is there anything you'd like to amend or supplement?"

-   Always give the witness the privilege of contacting the board if
    additional information is later recalled or comes to their
    attention. Not everyone can think of every detail on the spot, and
    the questioning my well trigger further search of memory and
    records.

> **Specific Strategies:**
>
> It is very confusing if all three panel members ask questions at the
> same time. One effective way to capitalize on three sets of eyes and
> ears is to assign a separate and distinct role to each panel member.
>
> [Primary Interviewer]{.underline}: Asks the primary questions
> previously identified, or asks questions related to the issues or
> areas of concern previously identified.
>
> [Clarifier]{.underline}**:** Thinks of additional questions that
> should be asked as the interview process progresses. Notes all
> questions not answered or partially answered by the witness and asks
> follow-up questions. This person must be an excellent listener and
> able to pay attention.
>
> [Observer:]{.underline} Documents body language, speck patters, and
> the "aura" of the interview.
>
> **Types of Questions --** There are four primary types of questions:
> open-ended, leading, yes/no, and narrow.
>
> **Open-ended questions** -- Related information is predicated on what
> witness views as pertinent and relevant.
>
> [Example]{.underline}: Is there anything else you believe is pertinent
> to this matter? What happened after Mr. Brown spat at Nurse Jones?
> What did you see next? What did you hear next? What else happened?
>
> [Advantages]{.underline} --

-   Reports events on witness' terms, can call details that would be
    forgotten if questioned about details.

-   Provides indirect recognition, less threatening.

-   If topic is sensitive, narrow questions can make the witness
    defensive.

-   Provides range of freedom for response.

-   Allow party to get something off their chest.

-   Helps to overcome inhibitors. Individual may feel reluctant to
    discuss something.

> [Disadvantages]{.underline} --

-   Loose structure allows verbose witness to ramble.

-   Doesn't elicit sufficient detail.

-   Reluctant witness may be hesitant.

> **Leading Questions** -- Questions that suggest an answer. Witness is
> asked to affirm answer determined by the board member, based on what
> they believe is pertinent and relevant.
>
> [Example]{.underline}: "This isn't the first time you've had narcotics
> unaccounted for, it is?" "You borrowed \$100 from the patient, didn't
> you?" "You dated the patient after discharge, didn't you?"
>
> [Advantages]{.underline} --

-   Witness clearly knows information.

-   Witness inclined to withhold information or the board believes the
    witness violated norm.

-   Witness accepts norm as valid.

> [Disadvantages]{.underline} --

-   Distortion if witness is unsure.

-   Witness intimidation

> **Yes/No Questions --** For example: "were you aware the patient had
> previously climbed over the bed rails?" "Did you check on the bottle's
> label before pouring the solution into the basin?"
>
> **Narrow Questions** -- Restricts discussion to specific aspect of a
> general subject.
>
> Example: "How long after the order was written was the medication
> administered?"
>
> [Advantages]{.underline}:

-   Use when witness avoiding sensitive topic as it can raise a witness'
    comfort level and then the answer can proceed to open-ended
    questions.

-   Elicits details.

-   Less time consuming than open-ended.

> [Disadvantages]{.underline} --.

-   Inhibits rapport -- witness never has opportunity to fully explain.

-   Probes before witness is ready.

> **Witness Credibility --** It goes without saying that the credibility
> of a witness is something to consider when preparing findings and
> recommendations. In addition, interviewers should be aware of
> indicators of a witness' credibility and react accordingly during the
> interview itself. Factors relevant to the credibility of a witness'
> testimony include:

-   The witness' opportunity and capacity to observe the event or act in
    question.

-   Any prior inconsistent statement of the witness.

-   The witness' bias or lack of bias.

-   The contradiction of a witness' version of events by, or its
    consistency with, other evidence.

-   The inherent probability of the witness' version of events.

-   The witness' demeanor.

> By pursuing a productive line of questioning, the skillful interviewer
> can better determine whether the witness' testimony is reliable. When
> the witness testifies to something that appears impossible or
> contradicts other evidence, the interviewer should determine whether
> the witness has an explanation for the apparent inconsistency.
>
> **Verbal and Non-Verbal Behaviors** - Besides the content of their
> testimony, witnesses give clues about their credibility through
> demeanor. Many witnesses who attempt to be deceptive will display
> nonverbal behaviors that are indicative of anxiety. Interpreting
> demeanor is not an exact science for everyone. Some witnesses do not
> experience anxiety when being deceptive, because they either believe
> what they say, or they are sociopathic. An honest witness can also
> appear deceptive because of personality traits, such as paranoia.
> Still others, like successful negotiators or poker players, have
> developed skills at masking deception. Because of this, interpreting
> demeanor should be used primarily as an interview tool rather than as
> support for an uncorroborated finding.
>
> A typical truthful witness will show appropriate concern and become
> less nervous as s/he testifies; is cooperative, answers questions
> directly, and volunteers information; exhibits natural changes in
> posture, engages in appropriate eye contact, and is likely to engage
> in frequent grooming gestures; verbal responses are spontaneous;
> volunteers useful information and demonstrates appropriate recall.
>
> A typical untruthful witness feigns unconcern or is guarded; complains
> about the investigation and becomes increasingly nervous; may cross
> his/her arms, appear unnaturally rigid, or display erratic changes in
> posture; avoids eye contact when answering or s/he may stare; is more
> likely to release tension through major body movements or grooming
> gestures, such as scratching or picking lint, when answering key
> questions; may have a selective memory; does not volunteer helpful
> information, and verbal responses are guarded or off the subject.
>
> Certain verbal phrases have been identified as indicators of deception
> during interviews. Most people find it extremely difficult and
> uncomfortable to tell a bold-faced lie so they tell the truth, but
> only PART of the truth. Accordingly to Gary Aschenback, a retired
> Maryland State Police interviewing and interrogation expert, "they lie
> by omission, not commission." He cites examples of "evasive verbal
> responses" that may indicate the witness might be hiding something,
> and further questioning is needed.

1.  **Unfinished Business** -- Phrases to watch for: That's about it.
    That's about the gist of it. That's about all I know. That's about
    all that happened. That's about all I can tell you. I guess that's
    about it. I guess that's about all I know. That's pretty much what
    happened. As far as I know, that's about it. There's not much more
    to tell. There's not much more to say. There's not much more to it.
    There's not a whole lot more to say.

> If you look closely, phrases like these are actual admissions that
> there's more to tell. If someone says, "that about it," they're NOT
> saying, "That's it, there's nothing else." They are saying, "I told
> you some, but there IS more."
>
> The next time someone ends an interview with "That's about it," try
> asking, "That's about it? Tell me the rest." If they respond, "No,
> that's it," try confronting them with what they said: "Then why did
> you say that's ABOUT it?" This increases their level of stress and may
> yield further indicators that can help you.

2.  **I can't** -- Phrases to watch for: I can't say, I can't think of
    anything. I can't tell you anything about that. I can't really tell
    you anything. I'm not able to tell you anything. I'm not able to
    say. I can't explain anything about that. I couldn't say. I couldn't
    tell you. I couldn't tell you that. I can just say. I can say this.
    I can tell you this. I can only tell you this.

> The witness is telling you the truth; he or she can't tell you
> anything about the matter you are investigating. The big question is
> why? It's possible that he or she truly doesn't know anything. BUT,
> it's also very possible that he can't tell you about the matter you're
> investigating because if s/he did, s/he'd be headed for trouble.

3.  **Hypothetically Structured Phrase** -- Phrases to watch for: I
    would say not. I would deny that allegation. I should say not. I'd
    deny that we were ever in there. I could certainly say. I could say
    that I did not. Let me say this: I wasn't involved in anything like
    that. I'll say this: no. I could unequivocally deny that. Phrases
    like this indicate that the person thinks that the question SHOULD,
    COULD, WOULD or OUGHT to be answered, but they're not going to give
    you an answer, or at least an honest one.

4.  **No Proof** -- Phrases to watch for: There's absolutely no proof
    that I was involved. There's absolutely not one piece of proof. Show
    me the proof. Where's the proof? They'll never prove it. No proof
    exists one way or another. What proof does anyone have?

> A witness may issue a direct challenge..."Prove it!" Why? It could be
> that no one can prove that he was there, because he really wasn't.
> But, it could also be because he's confident no one saw him and that
> he didn't leave behind any physical evidence that would tie him to the
> event. You'll need to find out which it is.

5.  **Accusatory** -- Phrases to watch for: Are you accusing me of doing
    that? I don't like being accused of things like that. I feel like
    I'm being accused. Who is accusing me of lying about it? That
    accusation is false. I've been accused of stuff before.

6.  **"The answer is..."** -- Phrases to watch for: The answer is no. My
    answer to that is no. The answer is no. That's a no. I'll answer
    that no. The answer to that question is no.

> Here, the easiest and most direct answer to give in the least amount
> of effort is, "No." Instead, the person being interviewed decided to
> introduce the answer. Evasive responses like this are usually given
> during a series of closed-ended questions: Did you hit that patient?
> No. Were you present when that patient got hit? No. Did you slap that
> patient? No. Do you know for sure who slapped that patient? The answer
> to that is no.
>
> It's not easy for most people to answer with a direct lie. In this
> instance, the interviewee is able to answer some questions, possibly
> those that don't cause him/her discomfort, with a direct no. But with
> the last questions, s/he couldn't just say no: s/he had to add some
> extra words. This may be a strong indication that this particular
> question causes her/him enough concern that s/he's not comfortable
> answering it with a direct answer. Why? Maybe because s/he actually
> DOES know who slapped the patient.

7.  **Hard Question** -- Phrases to watch for: That's a hard question.
    That's a good one. That's a hard one. That's a tough one. That's a
    tough question. That's a difficult question. That's hard to answer.
    That's a tough question to answer. That's hard for me to answer.

> Keep in mind that many people prepare themselves for interviews by
> trying to predict what questions they will be asked and preparing a
> list of answers in their heads. During question, you'll probably ask a
> lot of the questions s/he predict you would ask. But you might drop a
> bomb on her/him by asking something s/he hadn't prepared himself for.
> A response such as "That's a good question." might really mean "Whoa!
> I hadn't even through of THAT question. Nice job. That's a good
> question."

8.  **Objection** -- Phrases to watch for: I'm not the kind of person
    who would do anything like that. I'm not the kind of person who
    would ever try to do something like that. I'm not the kind of person
    who does things like that. I don't do stuff like that. I don't do
    things of that nature. I don't go around doing those kinds of
    things. I couldn't do something like that.

> This is a direct objection to the question, similar to when a lawyer
> stands up in court and yells, "I object, your honor!" Why does s/he
> object? Because the answer to the question will not help her/his case
> and will likely to him/her harm. The same goes for a guilty person. If
> someone knows he stole money from a safe and an interviewer asks him,
> "Did you steal that money from the safe?" He doesn't want to say yes,
> so he objects to the question by asserting that the question is
> offensive, because it's not in his nature to steal.

9.  **Non-Reflective Denial of Knowledge** -- Phrases to watch out for
    are given WITHOUT PAUSE: I don't remember. I can't seem to recall at
    this time. Not to my knowledge. I guess not. I doubt it. Not that I
    can remember. I'm just going off of what I remember at this time.
    All that I can remember is...Not to the best of my recollection.

> Typically, when people are trying to remember something, they pause
> before they say, "not that I can remember." Something to watch for
> when interviewing a subject is an answer like this given IMMEDIATELY
> after the question without a pause for reflection. If you get an
> answer like this, consider that the person possibly hasn't tried
> remembering, they are just saying they don't remember so you'll move
> on. In reality, they may very well know that answer to the question
> but don't want to give it to you.

10. **Maintenance of Dignity** -- Phrases to watch for: I wouldn't
    dignify that question with an answer. What kind of question is that
    to ask me? I don't like the implications of that question. That's
    ridiculous. That's an offensive question. I've got better things to
    do that answer a question like that.

> Here, a person answers a question with an assertion that what is asked
> is offensive to her/him. An example might be if someone asked "Did you
> steal any of the computer equipment from the office?" and they reply,
> "What kind of question is that to ask me?" If is possible that the
> person really does believe that this is an offensive question, even if
> it was asked in a non-offensive manner. However, it's also quite
> possible that the person is feigning offense in an attempt to make you
> uncomfortable, possible hoping that you will apologize and move on.
> Don't fall for this. The answer to the question is a simple yes or
> not. You might respond, "I'm sorry that the question offended you, but
> I need you to give me an answer." Then watch other evasive responses
> that might follow. If you hear any, keep digging.

11. **Projection** -- Phrases to watch for: A person would have to be
    crazy to do that. Only a sicko would do that. Whoever did this has
    got a real problem. The person who did this must be on drugs or
    something. You would have to be a jerk to steal something. Sounds
    like this person is a real nut. The guilty person really needs some
    help.

> Projection is a defense mechanism where a person voices his/her own
> fears while attributing them to someone else. For example, a witness
> is asked, "Did you touch that patient's private parts?" and s/he
> responds, "Someone would have to be really sick in the head to do
> something like that." Did s/he answer the question? No. Did s/he give
> an answer that is a tip off to possible guilt? Absolutely. In this
> case, the "someone" this person might be referring to is her/himself
> and s/he's revealing that s/he's aware that s/he's sick and s/he's
> concerned about it.

12. **Interrogatory** -- Phrases to watch for: How should I know that?
    How would I know? You think I know that? Why do you need to know
    that? Why are you asking me that? What kind of question is that?
    What makes you think I'd know that? What's the meaning of that
    question?

> Here the subject answers a question with a question. Sometimes this
> type of evasive response takes the form of mirroring the question just
> asked. For example, the interviewer asks, "Did you slap that man?" and
> the witness responds "did I slap that man?" Is the subject truly
> trying to clarify the question because s/he didn't understand it, or
> is s/he buying time because s/he is forced into a corner with a
> closed-ended question that should be responded to with a simple yes or
> no answer? What is s/he saying when s/he slapped that man?" with, "How
> should I know?" Is s/he really wondering why the interviewer would be
> dumb enough to think s/he might know who the slapper is, or is it
> possible s/he just can't bring him/herself to tell a flat-out lie
> like, "No."

13. **Rambling Dissertation** -- What to watch for: The interviewer
    asks, "Were you on duty in the admissions area that day?" and the
    interviewee responds, "Man, what a day. The phones didn't stop
    ringing. My boss was on my back. Somebody got the promotion I
    wanted. I was stressed out. I can't believe they promoted that guy.
    S/He's so incompetent, it's ridiculous. I'm gonna start looking for
    another job. I've had it with that place. They don't pay me enough
    to put up with all the hassle. I mean, there's other places to work,
    right?"

> What just happened here? A simple question was asked that could have
> been quickly answered with a yes or a no. Instead, a flood of
> information was provided that has nothing to do with the question. The
> real answer to the question is hidden between a bunch of verbal
> packing.
>
> If a question is answered with a rambling dissertation, it's important
> to remember that this person could in fact be innocent and may be
> relating to all the extra information because s/he's afraid the
> interviewer might think s/he's guilty unless s/he fully justifies his
> answer. But it's also possible that s/he's hiding something.
>
> Also remember that under stress, the body releases adrenaline that
> needs to be released and breathing may be labored or excessive. But
> talking for a while, the subject may be trying to relieve some of that
> stress, stabilize her/his breathing and help ease the discomfort s/he
> is feeling.

14. **The Answer Doesn't Equal the Question** -- What to watch for: The
    interviewer asks, "Did you have any drugs on you when you walked
    into the Regional Office?" and the answer is "I don't have nothing
    to do with drugs!"

> In this example, the interviewer is asked, "Did you have any drugs on
> you when you walked into the office?" NOT, Do you have any drugs? Tell
> me how you feel about drugs." Again, the question could have been
> answered with a yes or no answer, but wasn't. Why? Is it because the
> witness answers every question ever asked of him/her that has to do
> with drugs with a statement like this? Does s/he really want to the
> interviewer to know s/he's not the drug type? Or is s/he avoiding the
> questions? Be curious enough to find out.

15. **Denial of Presence** -- What to watch for: The interviewer is in a
    room alone with only one subject and asks, "Did you slap that man?"
    and s/he answers, "Who me? Is that question directed at me?" A
    response like this should set off warning bells. Only two people are
    in the room. The interviewer obviously wasn't asking it of
    her/himself, so there's only one person the question could be
    directed to...the interviewee. Obviously, the answer to her/his
    question is yes; the interviewer WAS asking HER/HIM the question.
    Why would s/he ask with such an obvious answer? Is s/he buying time?
    Have you made her/him uncomfortable? Why is s/he uncomfortable? Find
    out.

16. **Speech Errors** -- Mistakes to watch for: I'm doing everything I
    can to prove myself GUILTY. It'll show you I'm not telling the
    truth.

> Here the interviewee makes a mistake...a "Freudian slip." Freud
> believed that a mistake like this reveals an "unconscious agenda"
> going on below the surface of one's conscious awareness. Honest
> mistakes are always possible and assuming guild solely on the basis of
> a verbal or written mistake is definitely not advisable. But an
> interviewer should take EVERYTHING s/he sees and hears into
> consideration. A mistake like this made under pressure should be
> remembered and considered a small -- but potentially important --
> piece of a big puzzle.
>
> Also, watch for corrections to the slip up like, "That was a mistake;
> I didn't mean to say that." What they're telling you is true. That
> really WAS a mistake and they really didn't mean to say that, but
> don't disregard the fact that they DID say it.

# ANALYSIS

1.  **Introduction:** An investigation is not a final destination. It is
    hopefully the means to that end. All collected information must be
    compiled in a logical fashion AND INDEXED. Even if a piece of
    information is not considered relevant it should be included to
    avoid possible problems if a party would assert evidence was
    submitted, but not considered by the panel in its deliberations.
    Failure to properly document the progress of the investigation and
    to index collected information can often lead to the loss of
    important information, the need to repeat interviews, or the failure
    to adequately identify investigative leads. Every exhibit should be
    labeled in numerical or alphabetical order.

2.  **Sample of Analysis of Evidence:** Analysis is an ongoing activity
    that begins with planning the investigation. It includes determining
    what evidence is relevant to resolving the central factual issues
    that the investigation is responsible for resolving. It also
    includes determining the credibility of evidence collected as well
    as the quantity required. As physical evidence and testimony are
    collected, fact patterns emerge. Circumstances such as the
    availability of witnesses or other evidence, the quality of the
    evidence, the extent of agreement or disagreement within the
    evidence, and the burden of proof affect the scope of investigation.
    Another factor affecting the scope of an investigation is the
    emergence of related issues, such as pursuit of issues concerning
    witness bias or issues raised by the subjects in their defense.
    Because of its role in determining the scope of the investigation
    activities, analysis is also required when determining whether to
    continue to pursue the investigation or whether to attempt to write
    the report. As a practical matter, it is possible to begin drafting
    sections of the report as the necessary evidence is collected and
    combine with other sections later.

> **Identify Central Issues and Sub-issues:** When formulating the
> results of the investigation, investigators should prepare or revise
> an outline of the investigation's analytical framework. The purpose of
> the analytical framework is to identify the central issues and
> sub-issues in the investigation. In completing this step,
> investigators should consider the original parameters of the
> investigation assignment, subsequent scope changes, as well as
> relevant sub-issues emerging during the review. The analytical
> framework should be appropriate for the end product sought. In
> addition to outlining the facts on significant events, investigators
> should, when requested, determine whether systemic issues contributed
> to the outcome and whether management should consider administrative
> action against responsible employees.
>
> **Identify Relevant Standards and Elements**: When completing or
> revising the investigation framework, investigators should apply logic
> and common sense. The investigator should have identified which
> standards (laws, regulations, policies, etc.) seemed to apply to the
> facts during the preliminary investigation phase. However, the process
> of correctly matching the relevant standards with the emerging facts
> often requires analysis and framework revision throughout the
> investigation because standards and material facts have a dynamic and
> interdependent relationship. The facts as they are known suggest which
> standards apply. Once a standard has been identified, however, review
> of the standard may point to additional factual issues that need to be
> pursued. Similarly, facts uncovered subsequently may lead to
> identification of additional relevant standards.
>
> To determine which factual issues should be addressed to determine
> whether a particular standard was violated, the investigator should
> identify the elements of the standard. An element is a distinct
> factual sub-issue relevant to determining compliance with a standard.
> Standards apply to operation procedures as well as personal
> performance or conduct.
>
> **An example of a standard** related to conduct is the prohibited use
> of Government property, which is prohibited by the Standards of
> Ethical Conduct. The specific standard, 5 CFR 2635.704, provides that
> "An employee has a duty to protect and conserve Government property
> and shall not use such property, or allow its use, for other than
> authorized purposes." The elements of this standard include the
> following:

-   Is the subject under investigation a Federal employee as defined in
    5 CFR 2635?

-   Is the property in question Government property?

-   Did the subject under investigation use or permit someone else to
    use the property in question?

-   Was the purpose for which the property in question was used
    authorized?

> In addition to elements of standards, investigators may contemplate
> factual questions related to determining the cause of an event. Risk
> managers often have structured questionnaires available for this
> purpose which prompts investigators to answer questions concerning the
> adequacy of procedures, training, quality control, communications,
> supervision, etc. These tools can be important to identifying
> systematic improvements to reduce the risk of similar problems in the
> future.
>
> **Relevancy, Quality, and Quantity of evidence:** As investigators
> collect and analyze evidence, they should apply principles concerning
> evidence as identified previously in section D of this guide. The
> three major characteristics of evidence to consider are relevant,
> quality, and quantity. Evidence is relevant when it relates in a
> logical way (directly or indirectly) to the investigation issues.
> Relevance can be positive (tending to prove a fact) or negative
> (tending to disprove a fact). Relevant evidence should be collected
> regardless of whether it is positive or negative. The "quality" of the
> evidence relates to its credibility or truth-value. When investigators
> receive conflicting evidence on a matter of fact, they have to asses
> the evidence's credibility. This process frequently raises sub-issues
> of fact, such as the witnesses' capacity to observe the event or
> witnesses' biases, which should be added to the analysis framework.
>
> The quantity aspect of evidence deals with its sufficiency: whether
> the evidence as a whole meets the required standard, such as
> "preponderance of evidence". The standard of evidence can influence
> the level of thoroughness required to resolve an issue as well as
> determining the sufficiency of certain evidence in light of
> conflicting evidence.
>
> **With regard to the identified issues or areas of concern developed
> by the Board, the following procedure can be followed to analyze the
> evidence.**
>
> **STEP ONE** - Review the evidence, including transcriptions of
> testimony. Mark of flag the relevant evidence on key points.

-   Take the first issue/area and list all factual elements. Under each
    element list the answers given by each identified witness and
    identify the supporting physical evidence/admissions.

-   Do all the answers basically agree? If so, are the answers logical
    and reasonable?

-   If the answers don't agree, identify how they differ and, if
    possible, why they might differ. Remember that the majority is not
    always right/correct.

-   If the answers don't agree it may be necessary to recall one or more
    witnesses.

-   There may be some questions for which the Board is unable to obtain
    an answer. These should be noted in the narrative of the Findings of
    the report.

-   Do the above procedure for each issue.

> **Step Two** - List what has been learned in this investigation.
> Identify if the information learned fulfills the charge given by the
> Director?

-   If not, why not? Are there other sources of information that could
    be tapped or do additional witnesses need to be interviewed?

-   If not, is it possible, in the Board's view, to obtain an answer? If
    the Board feels that it is not possible, the reasons for that
    opinion should be documented.

> **If it does meet the charge, are there areas, policies/procedures
> that were identified during the investigation that need to be
> improved? If so, what were they and how might they be improved? This
> would then be a recommendation or a series of recommendations.**
>
> **Credibility of Testimony**:
>
> When weighing a witness' credibility the following should be
> considered:

-   [Witness demeanor]{.underline}: Eye contact, body language,
    nervousness, sweating, tone of voice, discomfort, argumentative,
    defensive, or hostile. Testimony pulled from the witness.

-   [Logic and consistency of story]{.underline}: Chronology fits
    events/others' testimony. Story makes sense, is plausible, logical,
    or farfetched.

-   [Corroborated by other evidence]{.underline}:

-   [Circumstantial evidence]{.underline}: Things said or done, or
    available physical evidence points to the story being more likely
    true or untrue.

-   [Self-interest/Bias]{.underline}: No personal or job related reason
    for interest in statements.

-   [Withholding information]{.underline}: Witness names or personal
    documentation "casts shadow over testimony."

-   [Contradictory testimony]{.underline}: Could the person have been
    there? Could the person have overheard what occurred? Could the
    person have seen what occurred?

> Before issuing the report, the investigator should double check to
> ensure that the representations of the facts, policies, and
> regulations in the report are supported by the evidence of record.
>
> **Sample Analysis Worksheet**

+----------------------+------------+--------------+------------------+
| **Applicable         | **         | **Ex         | **Testimony**    |
| Issue/**             | Evidence** | hibit/Page** |                  |
|                      |            |              |                  |
| *                    |            |              |                  |
| *Standard/Elements** |            |              |                  |
+----------------------+------------+--------------+------------------+
| ***I. Taking Mail*** |            |              |                  |
+----------------------+------------+--------------+------------------+
| a\. Took mail        | Testimony  | Ex. 3, pg.   | Observed Mr.     |
|                      | of Ms.     | 10           | Green take       |
|                      | Smith      |              | envelope from    |
|                      |            |              | supv's desk      |
+----------------------+------------+--------------+------------------+
| b\. Without          | Testimony  | Ex. 5, pg. 6 | Did not instruct |
| authority            | of Supv.   |              | Mr. Green to     |
|                      | Brown      |              | take mail.       |
+----------------------+------------+--------------+------------------+
|                      | Position   | Ex. 8        | Not in Mr.       |
|                      | d          |              | Green's official |
|                      | escription |              | duties           |
+----------------------+------------+--------------+------------------+
| c\. Before delivery  | Testimony  | Ex. 5, pg. 8 | Never received   |
|                      | of Supv.   |              | the donated      |
|                      | Brown      |              | tickets          |
+----------------------+------------+--------------+------------------+
| d\. With intent to   | Testimony  | Ex. 5, pg.   | Mr. Green        |
| permanently deprive  | of Mr.     | 11           | offered to sell  |
|                      | Black      |              | him some         |
|                      |            |              | tickets.         |
+----------------------+------------+--------------+------------------+

1.  **When to Terminate the Investigation**

> There always remains the question of when to terminate an
> investigation. There is not set formula to dictate when enough
> information has been gathered to ensure that the board of
> investigation has fully completed their inquiry. There are, however,
> some general concepts that can be followed in determining when enough
> testimony and evidence has been collected. Here are some tips that
> will be of assistance in making this determination:

-   The most obvious is when all evidence has been collected and all
    witnesses interviewed.

-   When the preponderance of testimonial and physical evidence clearly
    indicated that the facts of the case in question are or are not
    substantiated. When the testimony is redundant and there are no
    doubts that further testimony will not discover further information
    essential to the investigation.

-   When it is determined that all disputed facts are resolved and
    continuing the investigation will disrupt the normal operation of
    the facility.

# PREPARING THE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION

1.  **Introduction:**

> The report of investigation is the medium through which the Director
> evaluated the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Board
> of Investigation and makes decision regarding what corrective action,
> if any, should be taken. The Report is normally in memorandum format.
> Since the corrective action recommended may include disciplinary
> action, policy and procedural changes, etc., it is essential that the
> investigator(s) effectively present findings and supporting documents
> in a clearly written and well organized report.
>
> The chairman and members of the Board of Investigation shall return to
> the Facility Director's office all draft copies, tapes, notes, working
> papers, etc., relevant to the case and/or used to formulate the final
> report of investigation. Nothing relating to the case should be
> retained by either the chairman or members. The original copy of the
> completed report, all exhibits and the authority for conducting the
> investigation should be submitted to the Facility Director in the
> manner specific in the memorandum authorizing the investigation.

2.  **Parts of the Report:**

> **Format -** Each VA facility has an adopted format, peculiar to that
> facility. Traditionally it consists of eight or nine parts; the
> authorizing letter, the panel's purpose, the identification data, the
> scope of the investigation, summary, findings, exhibits, conclusions,
> and recommendations.

a.  **Authority** -- In essence, this is the panel's charge or mission.
    It is the reason why the panel was convened. This element of a
    report is a necessary statement of the official authority the
    investigator acted under and of the official nature of the report.
    The paragraph should generally read as follows: "This investigation
    was authorized by the Director, VA Medical Center (place) on (date)
    per Memorandum dated\_\_\_\_."

b.  **Purpose** -- The initial purpose of the investigation should be
    concisely stated. As an example: "to investigate an allegation that
    on or about (date), veteran John W. Smith was abused by Field
    Examiner, Homer Oxford, in his personal residence."

c.  **Identification Data** -- Pertinent identifying information and
    historical data is included in this section.

d.  **Scope** -- This paragraph should briefly tell the reader of the
    extent of the investigation conducted. If the investigation was
    extended into areas beyond the original purpose, it must be revealed
    here and not in the body of the investigation:

> Example: "Investigation was limited to the alleged incident. Seven
> employees and two patients found to have knowledge pertinent to the
> incident were interviewed."
>
> Example: "During the course of the investigation, two additional
> allegations of abuse by Mr. Homer Oxford were made by two other
> veterans and addresses by the investigators."

e.  **Summary** -- The summary should be short and factually accurate.
    It will identify the key evidence relevant to the elements of the
    charge. It basically gives the "bottom line". The purpose of the
    summary is to explain briefly to the reader what you found out and
    what it means. The summary is not a rehash of the investigation.
    Rather, it identifies the problem and states what conclusions the
    evidence reports.

f.  **Discussion of Findings** -- Findings are distinct from conclusions
    or recommendations in that they are not opinion or interpretation.
    All findings should be referenced to and supported by the collected
    evidence. Findings should include comment of the evidence; both on
    the quantity as well as quality of the evidence collected,
    developed, and analyzed. Issues as to witness credibility and
    corroboration should be raised in findings.

> Findings are the Boards combination and resolution of undisputed and
> disputed facts and evidence. Resolutions and determinations of
> disputed facts belong in findings, not conclusions. As such, findings
> must be both supported and constrained by the evidence. They go to the
> who, what, why, where, and how. Findings are the resolutions of the
> details.
>
> This is a narrative addressing all the pertinent evidence. In a good
> narrative, the legal and factual issues are set out and resolved in an
> orderly way. Subparagraphs relating to separate findings and
> testimonials should be used within this section to set apart the
> information collected. Comments or observations by the investigator
> may be entered after each subparagraph as parenthetical "Investigator
> Notes." References to pertinent supporting exhibits should be included
> in parenthesis wherever appropriate as "EXHIBIT I, II, III, ETC."
>
> The simple organization of the narrative can be extremely difficult.
> Some of the more common ways to organize the narrative are:

(1) Describe the question or problem posed by the requesting authority
    and then describe what each witness or other evidence had to say
    about it.

(2) List the elements and, under each, describe each piece of evidence
    that bears on that element.

(3) List each witness and describe each document or other evidence in
    turn, carefully summarizing what each one proves or disproves (this
    is the easiest to write and the hardest to read).

(4) Chronological order -- This style must deal thoroughly with each and
    every element of the violation involved. This is also hard to read,
    as the reader must pull the information together on their own.

> Regardless of the format chosen or required, there must be a reference
> to exhibits in support of every factual assertion. Therefore, after
> every factual statement the exhibits supporting that statement should
> be identified in parentheses ( ). The exhibits are not repeated in the
> narrative; they are described. This must be done correctly and fairly.
> It is not fair, for example to describe a witness as "admitting" a
> fact when he merely stated it and the fact doesn't bear on his
> culpability. In other words, watch the use of emotionally-charged
> language. Such language will impair credibility.

g.  **Exhibits** -- This includes an index of all exhibits supporting
    the investigative findings and a descriptive heading of each. The
    exhibits should be included in their entirety. The report is
    incomplete if the exhibits are not part of the package.

h.  **Conclusions** -- This section will contain conclusions based on
    the facts set forth in the findings and fully supported by the
    evidence. Conclusions are drawn from and constrained by the
    findings. They are a subject to opinion and interpretation of the
    evidence. Conclusions give weight to particular findings. While at
    first instance it may seem that findings and conclusions overlap,
    caution must be taken to avoid doing so and being redundant. They
    are distinct. Conclusions can only be arrived if a burden is met --
    more likely than not is usually the burden applied to administrative
    investigations. Conclusions are consequences of findings. Usually,
    they go to or answer the ultimate issue or matter in question.

> Be dispassionate and fair. When conclusions are being formulated, care
> should be taken to accurately define degrees of negligence
> (intentional or unintentional), physical causes, or other conditions,
> which contributed to the matter being investigated. Conclusions should
> be numbered consecutively may be subdivided if necessary. Conclusions
> must be based on evidence identified in the findings.

i.  **Recommendations** -- The Board is responsible for recommending
    action based on evidence. Recommendations should be supported by
    conclusions and are prospective. Recommendations are the culmination
    of all of the efforts that have gone before, in conducting an
    administrative investigation. Though presented at the end of the
    written report, this is usually the part read first by those
    reviewing the outcome of the investigation. This is because the
    conclusions and recommendations are "the Bottom Line."

> The recommendations must be based directly and logically on the facts
> and their analysis, and be consistent with the conclusions reached
> from such analysis. The recommendations should be well considered,
> specific actions, designed to fully address, cure, or resolve
> problems, weaknesses or issues identified in the investigation. Or,
> they may simply be to enhance performance, conduct a program or a
> process. These recommendations may be process focused to deal with
> systems and procedures, or they may address personnel actions.
> However, [recommendations should never cite specific disciplinary
> action]{.underline}; instead it is best to recommend "appropriate
> corrective action." It is necessary to avoid specific discipline in
> the recommendations for two reasons:

-   If management chooses not to implement a recommendation, and should
    the problem continue to reoccur, liability for damages could be
    greatly enhanced.

-   Line managers who are responsible for taking disciplinary action
    must consider things beyond the scope of the investigation of facts.
    Specifically, they must personally weigh the aggravating and
    mitigating circumstances commonly known as the "Douglas Factors."

> To be useful, the recommendations must be within the authority of the
> manager who assigned the investigation. If action is needed at a
> higher level or from a different line of authority, recommendation can
> be made that referral be made to the appropriate authority, for action
> as determined appropriate.
>
> The recommendations should be items of specific action that can be
> accomplished in a relatively short time frame so follow-up can be
> effective. In other words, so the matter can be brought to closure.
>
> Remember that investigation facts can sustain or deny allegations. For
> some issues, there may be no problems found, nor corrective actions
> indicated; so recommendations would not always be applicable, as set
> forth by supportable conclusions.
>
> In those instances where a board does not have sufficient basis for
> drawing conclusions, but based upon their collective experiences and
> underlying beliefs they do believe that activity occurred which should
> be addressed, the recommendation section is the place to insert such
> commentary. However, the commentary must clearly articulate that the
> recommendation based upon the Board's belief, not the investigation
> findings and conclusions.

a.  

> **Reminder**

-   All members of the Board should sign the report.

-   The Board should remember that it is advisory to the Director and
    that there is nor requirement to implement the recommendations as
    written, or not at all.