Department of Veterans Affairs 

Office of Inspector General 

Administrative Investigation
 

VA Secretary and Delegation
 

Travel to Europe
 

Report No. 17-05909-106 February 14, 2018
 

VA Office of Inspector General
 

Washington, DC 20420
 
 

   

             

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
 

Administrative Investigation
 

VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe
 

In April 2017, Secretary of Veterans Affairs David Shulkin accepted an invitation to 

attend the Ministerial Summit on Veterans’ Affairs in London (London Summit). The 

purpose of the London Summit was to bring together senior officials from the United 

States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand to discuss topical 

issues related to veterans. The London Summit began with a reception on the night of 

July 18, with meetings on July 19 and 20, 2017. After accepting the invitation, Secretary 

Shulkin asked his staff to arrange a visit to Copenhagen, Denmark. Working with US 

Embassy staff in Copenhagen and officials of the Danish government, meetings were 

scheduled for the morning of July 13 and on July 14. To conduct both visits, Secretary 

Shulkin led a VA delegation to the meetings in Copenhagen and London—leaving the 

United States on July 11 and returning on July 21, 2017. 

After the trip concluded, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) received an anonymous 

complaint alleging that the trip was a misuse of VA funds because the trip included a 

significant amount of personal time, including Secretary Shulkin’s attendance at the 

Wimbledon tennis tournament. The OIG conducted a thorough investigation that resulted 

in the findings and recommendations detailed in this report. 

To provide some relevant context, less than two weeks before the start of the trip, 

Secretary Shulkin issued a memorandum to all VA staff titled, Essential Employee Travel. 

The memorandum instructed staff that before approving any employee travel, managers 

must determine whether the travel is “essential” in order to decrease “employee travel 

and generate savings” within VA. It was in this climate that the VA delegation for the 

Europe trip included Dr. Merle Bari, the Secretary’s wife, who is a dermatologist in 

private practice; VA Chief of Staff Vivieca Wright Simpson; then Acting Under Secretary 

for Health Dr. Poonam Alaigh; and Program Specialist James (Gabe) Gough. Six 

members of the Secretary’s security detail also went on the trip, with several additional 

days of advance travel. A VA Ethics Official approved Dr. Bari as an “invitational 

traveler,” which authorized VA to pay her expenses. The trip cost VA at least $122,334. 

VA Office of Inspector General 
 

   

   

     

       

     

SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY

ϫ  ϣϢ  ϣϣ 

Transit

(aŌer 2 p.m. EDT)

ϣϤ 

Arrive

Copenhagen

ϣϥ  ϣϦ  ϣϧ  Transit

Arrive London

(8:35 a.m. GMT)

ϣϨ  ϣϩ ϣϪ  ϣϫ  ϤϢ  Ϥϣ 

Transit

(1:15 p.m. GMT)

ϤϤ 

     

   

 

 

 

The calendar below provides a summary of the planned official business and leisure time 

for the trip. 

July 2017

Figure 1. OIG analysis of trip calendar. 

Scheduled official business1

Scheduled leisure

Secretary Shulkin told OIG investigators that he found the trip substantively valuable to 

VA’s mission. While in Copenhagen, Secretary Shulkin and other members of the VA 

delegation had a number of meetings on issues related to Danish veterans’ health issues 

and their healthcare system, participated in a roundtable lunch with CEOs of Danish 

healthcare companies, and visited a veterans’ home and hospital. The joint communiqué 

of the London Summit noted that the delegates discussed a number of issues, including 

“post-traumatic disorder, rates of suicide and homelessness among veterans, barriers to 

mental health care, alternative therapies, veteran-centric approaches to the provision of 

services, and early intervention.” Secretary Shulkin stated that he also worked on other 

VA matters during the trip when there were no official functions, which is corroborated 

by his handling of matters relating to a media crisis that developed relating to allegations 

of substandard care at the Manchester VA Medical Center. The group’s schedule while in 

Europe, however, included significant personal time for sightseeing and other unofficial 

activities. While the OIG defers to Secretary Shulkin’s determination as to the value to 

VA of the three-and-a-half days of meetings in Copenhagen and London, the OIG 

identified a number of serious derelictions concerning the trip, including the following: 

1

 Secretary Shulkin stated to OIG investigators that he continued to conduct VA business even when there were no 

official events. In addition, the official itinerary includes entries for “Executive Time” ranging from one to four 

hours on July 15, 17, and 18. Security detail records reflect that some of the scheduled executive time was spent on 

unscheduled tourist activities. 

VA Office of Inspector General ii 
 

                           

                       

 

 

1. VA’s Chief of Staff Made False Representations to a VA Ethics Official and Altered

an Official Record, Resulting in VA Improperly Paying for Dr. Bari’s Air Travel

The OIG found that in April 2017 Chief of Staff Wright Simpson instructed staff to 

seek approval from VA ethics officials for Dr. Bari to be designated as an 

“invitational traveler.” This would have authorized VA to pay her expenses on the 

trip. VA ethics officials initially declined to approve Dr. Bari as an invitational 

traveler on the grounds that the available information did not show that her presence 

would serve a “sufficient government interest.” In response, Ms. Wright Simpson 

became personally involved and communicated directly with VA Designated Agency 

Ethics Official (DAEO) Tammy Kennedy. The OIG found that in order to obtain a 

favorable decision, Ms. Wright Simpson falsely represented to DAEO Kennedy that 

Secretary Shulkin would receive an award while in Denmark, which Ms. Wright 

Simpson understood to be the criterion that would justify Dr. Bari’s travel at VA 

expense.2

 When Ms. Kennedy asked for additional information about the award that 

Ms. Wright Simpson told her would be presented to Secretary Shulkin, the following 

emails were exchanged: 

	 Ms. Wright Simpson to Program Specialist Gough: “Hey, when at the event in 

Denmark, will Dr. Shulkin be receiving an award or special recognition[?]” 

	 Mr. Gough immediately replied: “Not that I’m aware of. However, all of the 

planning is still in draft phase, and has not been finalized by Denmark.” 

	 Four minutes later, Mr. Gough sent another email to Ms. Wright Simpson: 

“We’re working on having a dinner at the US Ambassador’s Residence in 

honor of SECVA, but that has not been confirmed by US Embassy 

Copenhagen yet.” 

	 Ms. Wright Simpson then altered this second email, making it appear that 

Mr. Gough wrote: “We’re having a special recognition dinner at the US 

Ambassador’s Residence in the honor of SECVA.” 

	 Ms. Wright Simpson then forwarded the altered email to Ms. Kennedy with a 

note: “Let me know if you need more.” 

	 Ms. Kennedy emailed in response: “Vivieca – This is exactly what I needed. 

Thanks. I am in the middle of drafting an e-mail which addresses the below 

and should serve as an approval to proceed.” 

2

 See Travel Expenses to Attend Awards Ceremony––Spouse of Recipient, 69 Comp. Gen. 38, 40 (Comp.Gen. 

October 26, 1989, interpreting 5 U.S.C. § 4503 to authorize payment of travel expenses for a federal employee’s 

spouse to attend an award ceremony in which the employee is the recipient of an award presented by the agency. As 

detailed in the report, the OIG concluded that this guidance was inapplicable because there was no award being 

made by VA. 

VA Office of Inspector General iii 
 

         

 

 

The OIG found no evidence that Secretary Shulkin was aware of Ms. Wright 

Simpson’s false representations or alteration of official records. Based on this email 

exchange and Ms. Wright Simpson’s prior oral representation that Secretary Shulkin 

would be receiving an award, Ms. Kennedy approved Dr. Bari as an invitational 

traveler and VA paid more than $4,000 for her airline ticket. Ms. Kennedy told OIG 

investigators that she would not have approved the expense reimbursement for 

Dr. Bari if she had been informed that Secretary Shulkin was not getting an award. 

Secretary Shulkin did not receive an award or special recognition during this Europe 

trip. Dr. Bari also did not qualify for VA travel expense reimbursement under any 

other allowable criteria. 

Since Ms. Wright Simpson’s false representations and alteration of an official record 

may have violated federal criminal statutes, the OIG referred this specific matter to 

the US Department of Justice (DOJ) to consider it for potential criminal prosecution; 

DOJ decided not to prosecute at this time. 

2. Secretary Shulkin Improperly Accepted Wimbledon Tickets

Secretary Shulkin and Dr. Bari attended the Ladies’ Final tennis match at Wimbledon 

on July 15, 2017, which was the Saturday following the Copenhagen trip and four 

days before the London Summit meetings began. Secretary Shulkin told OIG 

investigators that he received tickets for the event from Ms. Victoria Gosling, whom 

he described as his wife’s friend. According to publicly available information, 

Ms. Gosling is a UK resident and Head of Social Impact at Auden, a for-profit 

enterprise; a Military Director at Sage Foundation, the philanthropic affiliate of UK 

software company Sage Group plc; and a Military Councillor for the Lawn Tennis 

Association, which is the national governing body for tennis in Great Britain, 

including Wimbledon. Ms. Gosling also served as CEO of the 2016 Invictus Games 

held in Orlando, Florida.3

 Ms. Gosling not only provided the Wimbledon tickets, but 

she also hosted Secretary Shulkin, Dr. Bari, and their adult son for lunch before the 

match at the private members’ dining room at Wimbledon. OIG investigators made at 

least 19 attempts to contact Ms. Gosling between December 15, 2017, and January 24, 

2018. 

In a January 30, 2018 email response to the OIG’s request for an interview, 

Ms. Gosling identified Secretary Shulkin and his wife as “friends of mine” and stated 

that she offered the tickets “to thank them for their personal support to me whilst I 

was CEO Invictus Games Orlando.” In that email she agreed to talk with OIG 

investigators, but she did not thereafter respond to the OIG’s efforts to schedule an 

interview. OIG investigators contacted her by telephone on February 6, 2018, and 

conducted an unscheduled interview. That interview confirmed Secretary Shulkin’s 

3

 The international Invictus games are “Prince Harry’s sporting event for wounded, injured and sick Servicemen and 

women.” (See https://invictusgamesfoundation.org.) 

VA Office of Inspector General iv 
 

 

 

 

 

 

account that prior to his acceptance of Wimbledon tickets, he and Dr. Bari only had 

contact with Ms. Gosling during three official events in the United States. During the 

course of the 26-minute interview, OIG investigators and Ms. Gosling referred to 

Dr. Bari only as Secretary Shulkin’s “wife.” Toward the end of the interview, OIG 

investigators asked whether Ms. Gosling could recall the first name of Secretary 

Shulkin’s wife. After a long pause, Ms. Gosling was unable to recall Dr. Bari’s name, 

stating, “You actually -- I think that kept throwing me. I’m actually having a genuine 

blank here.” Ms. Gosling was unable to recall Dr. Bari’s name before the interview 

concluded. 

Federal ethics rules prohibit the solicitation or acceptance of any gift given because of 

the employee’s official position or if the gift comes from a prohibited source, unless 

an exception applies.4

 Before accepting the Wimbledon tickets, Secretary Shulkin did 

not seek an opinion from VA ethics counsel as to whether it was appropriate to accept 

the tickets as a gift. On September 28, 2017, after being notified of a pending 

Washington Post story about the trip and the Wimbledon tickets, Secretary Shulkin 

asked VA General Counsel James Byrne to seek an expedited ethics review of his 

acceptance of the tickets. To conduct the analysis, DAEO Kennedy sent Secretary 

Shulkin a series of written questions. In response, Secretary Shulkin wrote that 

Ms. Gosling was a friend of his wife and that “there is no business relationship, but 

purely a social friendship between the two of them.” Based on the responses to the 

questions, Ms. Kennedy opined that Secretary Shulkin could accept the tickets based 

on the “personal friendship” exception to the rule prohibiting the acceptance of gifts.5 

The OIG determined that the information DAEO Kennedy obtained from Secretary 

Shulkin was insufficient to accurately describe his or his wife’s relationship with 

Ms. Gosling. Dr. Bari first met Ms. Gosling in 2015 at a reception at the British 

Ambassador’s residence and the two had met at two other official events, including 

the Invictus Games in Orlando. The OIG did not identify, nor did Secretary Shulkin 

provide, evidence of a relationship between Dr. Bari and Ms. Gosling sufficient to 

meet the “personal friendship” exception. The OIG presented the information 

developed during the investigation about the relationship between Dr. Bari and 

Ms. Gosling to DAEO Kennedy.6

 After reviewing this additional information from 

the OIG, DAEO Kennedy concluded, the “totality of the documents totally indicate 

4

 5 CFR 2635.202. 

5

 See 5 C.F.R. § 2635.204(b) (“An employee may accept a gift given by an individual under circumstances which 

make it clear that the gift is motivated by a family relationship or personal friendship rather than the position of the 

employee. Relevant factors in making such a determination include the history and nature of the relationship and 

whether the family member or friend personally pays for the gift.”) 

6

 The OIG presented the information to Ms. Kennedy prior to the OIG’s unscheduled interview with Ms. Gosling on 

February 6, 2018. At the time of the OIG’s discussion with Ms. Kennedy, Ms. Kennedy knew that the tickets were 

provided to Secretary Shulkin and his wife by Ms. Gosling, but she did not have confirmation that Ms. Gosling had 

paid for the tickets herself. This additional information, learned from OIG’s discussion with Ms. Gosling, does not 

change OIG’s conclusion that the friendship exception is inapplicable. 

VA Office of Inspector General v 
 

                 

 

that they’re not friends, as represented in [Secretary Shulkin’s] response to me.” 

Ms. Kennedy told OIG investigators that, had she known this information at the time, 

she would not have given a favorable ethics opinion concerning the acceptance of the 

Wimbledon tickets. The OIG separately analyzed the relationship between Dr. Bari 

and Ms. Gosling and also determined that it would not meet the “personal friendship” 

exception because the gift was not given “under circumstances which make it clear 

that the gift [was] motivated by a family relationship or personal friendship rather 

than the position of the employee [emphasis added].”7

 Accordingly, the OIG found 

the acceptance of the Wimbledon tickets to be an improper gift. 

3. Secretary Shulkin Directed the Misuse of a Subordinate’s Official Time

The OIG also determined that the Europe trip resulted in a misuse of VA resources. 

While the delegation spent nine full days in Europe, there were only three-and-a-half 

days of meetings in addition to a reception the evening before the start of the London 

Summit. Prior to the trip, Secretary Shulkin directed VA Program Specialist Gough to 

work with Dr. Bari to plan personal activities for the Secretary and Dr. Bari during the 

trip. Emails support the conclusion that Mr. Gough made extensive use of official 

time for planning leisure activities. Mr. Gough effectively acted as a personal travel 

concierge to the Secretary and Dr. Bari. 

Personal activities planned for the Denmark trip included touring Amalienborg Palace 

for the Changing of the Guard; visiting Christiansborg Palace, Rosenborg Castle, and 

Frederiksborg Castle; taking a boat tour of Copenhagen from Nyhavn Canal; and 

shopping in Copenhagen. There was also an unplanned excursion across the border to 

Malmo, Sweden, for dinner on their last day, July 14. For the London trip, planned 

tourist activities included excursions to the Churchill War Rooms, Buckingham 

Palace, Kensington Palace, and Westminster Abbey; a Thames River cruise; and visits 

to St. Paul’s Cathedral, Tower of London (including the Ceremony of the Keys), 

Tower Bridge, Shakespeare’s Globe, London Eye, and Windsor Castle. 

The OIG was unable to determine the total amount of official time Mr. Gough spent 

planning these personal activities at the direction of Secretary Shulkin and Dr. Bari. 

However, it was clear from the extensive communications between Mr. Gough and 

Dr. Bari that he spent many hours attending to the personal aspects of the trip on their 

behalf that exceeded what was required to notify the security detail of their proposed 

movements. This was time that should have been spent conducting official VA 

business and not for providing personal travel concierge services to Secretary Shulkin 

and his wife. 

7

 5 CFR 2653.204. 

VA Office of Inspector General vi 
 

                 

     

       

 

4. Inadequate Documentation to Assess the Accuracy and Appropriateness of the

Costs of the Trip

The OIG was able to determine that the trip cost VA at least $122,334. However, the 

OIG could not be more precise because VA’s documentation was inadequate to assess 

the accuracy and appropriateness of the trip costs. The OIG did identify discrepancies 

and potential errors that warrant a closer examination by VA auditors. For example, 

VA requires travelers to provide a Travel Cost Comparison Worksheet, which 

compares the actual cost of the trip with the cost of the trip excluding personal travel 

expenses. No such worksheet was completed for this trip. The OIG found that 

personal conveniences did impact the cost of the trip. The travel itineraries of 

Secretary Shulkin, Dr. Bari, and five other members of the delegation departed earlier 

than previously scheduled from Copenhagen to London in order for the Secretary and 

Dr. Bari to attend Wimbledon. In addition to the $372 in travel agency transaction 

fees, this change also added $1,733 to lodging costs because VA paid for an early 

hotel check-in for six rooms, including for Secretary Shulkin and Dr. Bari. In another 

example of insufficient documentation, Ms. Wright Simpson’s original roundtrip 

economy class airfare cost $1,101. However, her ticket was modified so that there was 

a different connecting city. This change increased the ticket price to $4,041. Travel 

records are insufficient to determine what justification, if any, was provided for this 

increased ticket price. There was also an inexplicable overpayment to one of the 

security personnel of $3,825 for parking and $2,718 for lodging. 

5. Misleading Statements to the Media

The OIG further determined that VA issued a misleading statement to The 

Washington Post about the trip and did not correct the statement despite knowing that 

it was not entirely accurate. On September 27, 2017, VA public affairs staff learned 

that The Washington Post was working on a story about the July 2017 Europe trip and 

that the reporters were seeking information from VA, including about Secretary 

Shulkin’s attendance at Wimbledon. VA’s Assistant Secretary for Public and 

Intergovernmental Affairs John Ullyot met with Secretary Shulkin about a response to 

the upcoming article. Mr. Ullyot told OIG investigators that Secretary Shulkin helped 

draft the response, including the sentence, “All activities including Wimbledon were 

reviewed and approved by ethics counsel.” Secretary Shulkin denied having any 

involvement with the drafting of the response. On the same day that Mr. Ullyot met 

with Secretary Shulkin, two ethics officials (one of whom was Ms. Kennedy) met 

with General Counsel Byrne to discuss, among other things, what ethics reviews 

pertaining to the Europe trip had been conducted. The ethics officials informed 

Mr. Byrne that the only activity reviewed by them prior to the trip was whether 

Dr. Bari could be included as an invitational traveler. Mr. Byrne told OIG 

investigators that the sentence included in The Washington Post story on September 

28, 2017, was “generally true” and that he approved it to be released. However, he 

took no subsequent actions to correct it, even after VA ethics officials informed him 

VA Office of Inspector General vii 
 

 

 

 

 

that they did not believe it was an accurate statement because ethics officials had not 

reviewed “all” activities. 

Moreover, Secretary Shulkin was interviewed at a public forum by a Washington Post 

reporter on November 9, 2017. As part of that interview, Secretary Shulkin claimed 

that he paid for the Wimbledon tickets and that they were not a gift from “folks from 

the Invictus Games or anything like that.” That statement also is not accurate. 

The OIG is recommending that (1) Secretary Shulkin reimburse VA for Dr. Bari’s airfare; 

(2) Secretary Shulkin reimburse Ms. Gosling for the cost of the Wimbledon tickets and 

any other tangible benefits, and if she does not accept reimbursement, that he pay the 

same amount into the US Treasury; (3) VA take any appropriate administrative action 

against Ms. Wright Simpson and other individuals concerning the Europe trip; (4) VA 

audit the expense vouchers, travel authorizations, and the time and attendance records for 

all travelers and take any appropriate action to correct any errors; and (5) VA assess and 

enhance its training relating to the topics of travel planning, approvals, and the 

solicitation or acceptance of gifts. 

MICHAEL J. MISSAL 

Inspector General
 

VA Office of Inspector General viii 
 

   

     

                       

               

     

                   

                     

           

       

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................i
 

Introduction ................................................................................................................1
 

The Europe Trip ...........................................................................................................1
 

Secretary Shulkin Accepted an Invitation to the Ministerial Summit on 

Veterans’ Affairs in London, UK............................................................................. 2
 

Secretary Shulkin Added Denmark to the London Summit Itinerary and 

Selected a Delegation to Accompany Him............................................................... 2
 

VA Approved the Request to Pay Travel Expenses for Secretary Shulkin’s 

Wife .......................................................................................................................... 3
 

The Chief of Staff Made False Representations to a VA Ethics Official and 

Altered an Official Record ....................................................................................... 5
 

Secretary Shulkin Improperly Accepted Wimbledon Tickets .................................. 9
 

Secretary Shulkin Directed the Misuse of a Subordinate’s Official Time ............. 20
 

The OIG Cannot Determine the “Essential” Nature of the Travel in Keeping 

with the Secretary’s Memorandum ........................................................................ 22
 

The OIG Did Not Fully Assess the Costs to VA .................................................... 23
 

VA Made Misleading Statements to the Media ..................................................... 25
 

Conclusion.................................................................................................................27
 

Recommendations.....................................................................................................29
 

Appendix A. Relevant Laws, Regulations, Standards of Conduct, and VA Policy..........30
 

Appendix B. Excerpted Itinerary from Official Trip Book.............................................37
 

Appendix C. Comments..............................................................................................48
 

Appendix D. February 11, 2018, Response of the VA Secretary...................................50
 

Appendix E. February 12, 2018, Response of the VA Secretary ...................................79
 

Appendix F. February 11, 2018, Response of the VA Deputy Secretary .......................82
 

Appendix G. OIG Contact and Staff Acknowledgments...............................................86
 

Appendix H. Report Distribution................................................................................87
 

VA Office of Inspector General 
 

      

 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

Introduction

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) received an allegation from an anonymous 

source that Secretary of Veterans Affairs David J. Shulkin, VA Chief of Staff (COS) 

Vivieca Wright Simpson, and then Acting Under Secretary for Health Dr. Poonam Alaigh 

misused VA funds for travel to Europe and that the trip was more for personal than 

business reasons. Secretary Shulkin led a VA delegation to Copenhagen and London, 

leaving the United States on July 11 and returning on July 21, 2017 (Europe trip). The 

itinerary included a mix of business and tourist activities. The total cost paid by VA for 

the trip was at least $122,334.8 

To assess this allegation, OIG investigators interviewed 29 individuals with knowledge of 

this matter, some on more than one occasion. Interviewees included Secretary Shulkin; 

Chief of Staff Vivieca Wright Simpson; then Acting Under Secretary for Health 

Dr. Poonam Alaigh; General Counsel James Byrne; Assistant Secretary for Office of 

Public and Intergovernmental Affairs John Ullyot; Assistant Secretary for Operations, 

Security, and Preparedness Donald Loren; Program Specialist James (Gabe) Gough; VA 

ethics officials; other VA staff involved in planning the trip; and Secretary Shulkin’s sixmember security detail who accompanied him on the trip. The OIG conducted searches of 

more than 493,000 emails and reviewed in excess of 12,000 documents. The OIG also 

reviewed various federal laws, regulations, and VA policy. 

The Europe Trip

Secretary Shulkin told OIG investigators that he found the trip substantively valuable to 

VA’s mission. While in Copenhagen, Secretary Shulkin and other members of the VA 

delegation had a number of meetings on issues related to Danish veterans’ health issues 

and their healthcare system, participated in a roundtable lunch with CEOs of Danish 

healthcare companies, and visited a veterans’ home and hospital. In London, Secretary 

Shulkin and other VA staff attended an international meeting of government ministers 

from four allied nations to discuss health issues facing veteran communities. 

The OIG cannot determine the trip’s value to VA, which is a decision that fits squarely 

within Secretary Shulkin’s discretion. Excluding two travel days, the trip included threeand-a-half days of meetings, an official evening reception, and five-and-a-half days of 

personal time. Secretary Shulkin told OIG investigators that he attended to his duties as 

Secretary even during the portions of the trip where the schedule reflected planned tourist 

activities. The following is a summary of the trip and a description of the serious 

derelictions by VA personnel that occurred in connection with the trip. 

8

 The OIG identified at least $122,334 in direct travel costs related to the Europe trip. There are other direct and/or 

indirect costs as well, such as employee overtime for members of the security detail, and potentially others. 

VA Office of Inspector General 
                     

       

                       

       

 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

Secretary Shulkin Accepted an Invitation to the Ministerial Summit on Veterans’

Affairs in London, UK

In April 2017, the UK Parliamentary Under Secretary of State and Minister for Defence 

Personnel and Veterans invited Secretary Shulkin to attend the Ministerial Summit on 

Veterans’Affairs (London Summit) to be held July 18–20, 2017. The summit is held 

every 18–24 months to address challenges facing the veteran communities of Australia, 

Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States.9

 Secretary Shulkin 

accepted the invitation. 

The agenda for the London Summit began with a reception the evening of July 18, and 

was followed by two full days of meetings. The theme was “Future Support to Veterans 

and Mental Health.” The joint communiqué issued after the summit stated that the 

delegates discussed a number of issues, including “post-traumatic disorder, rates of 

suicide and homelessness among veterans, barriers to mental health care, alternative 

therapies, veteran-centric approaches to the provision of services, and early intervention.” 

Secretary Shulkin Added Denmark to the London Summit Itinerary and Selected a

Delegation to Accompany Him

After Secretary Shulkin accepted the invitation to attend the London Summit, he asked 

his staff in April to add Denmark to his July 2017 travel plan because he wanted to visit 

with Danish officials and learn more about their healthcare system. Secretary Shulkin told 

OIG investigators that he had at least three prior interactions with Danish government 

officials, and each time, they invited the Secretary to visit Denmark. Secretary Shulkin 

detailed that he first met with the Danish Ambassador and Crown Prince in 2016 when 

they visited the Washington DC VA Medical Center. Secretary Shulkin stated that he 

would not have made a special trip to Denmark, but the opportunity arose to have such a 

trip coincide with his travel to the London Summit. 

Secretary Shulkin told OIG investigators that he felt Denmark offered important lessons 

to VA because of the similarities of the injuries suffered by Danish and US veterans, their 

technology, and the way they recently organized their healthcare system. He explained 

that Denmark had consolidated its government hospitals into centers of excellence. 

Secretary Shulkin said that a comparable reorganization of the VA healthcare system was 

on his agenda, due in part to the number of underutilized VA facilities. 

Mr. Gough was asked to assist with the planning and he worked with Danish and US 

Embassy officials in Denmark to determine a schedule for Secretary Shulkin’s visit. In an 

email to a contact at the Royal Danish Embassy on April 18, 2017, Mr. Gough asked if 

9

 In 2014, the United States hosted the summit in West Point, New York. (See VA Press Release, “VA Hosts Senior 

International Forum and Ministerial Summit on Veterans Affairs” (April 8, 2014), 

https://www.va.gov/opa/pressrel/pressrelease.cfm?id=2535). 

VA Office of Inspector General 2 
                       

 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

Secretary Shulkin could visit Denmark on July 12 and 13 to “say hello to the Crown 

Prince, and get a better understanding of the Danish health care system.” In an email to 

members of Secretary Shulkin’s staff on April 24, 2017, Mr. Gough wrote, 

They are enthusiastic about hosting Secretary Shulkin in Denmark. They’d 

like to get a little better idea of his interests in the Danish Health Care 

System and if there is any location in particular he would like to visit? 

Anyone in particular he would like to meet? Topics he’s most interested in? 

etc. 

In an email to Mr. Gough on April 30, 2017, Secretary Shulkin asked whether the 

Denmark trip was confirmed for July 13 and 14 so that he could begin to make plans. He 

said, “Once you know please send me a note.” Mr. Gough replied that he should have 

solid details by mid-week. The next day, a staff member wrote to Mr. Gough that 

Secretary Shulkin wanted confirmation of the Denmark trip by “tomorrow.” Mr. Gough 

replied, 

I can only work as fast as their embassy works. They have indicated they 

are excited for the [S]ecretary to go to Denmark, so I’m confident the trip 

over there is a go. They’re still working on the details of the meetings / 

visits we would like. Those are what haven’t been confirmed. I’m also 

working with them on a spousal itinerary. 

Secretary Shulkin selected Ms. Wright Simpson, Dr. Alaigh, and Mr. Gough to 

accompany him on this trip, and subsequently, Secretary Shulkin’s and Dr. Alaigh’s 

spouses were added to the list of travelers (VA delegation).10 Secretary Shulkin told OIG 

investigators that as then Acting Under Secretary for Health, Dr. Alaigh’s attendance was 

necessary because the London Summit was focused on veteran healthcare issues, 

particularly mental health issues, and Dr. Alaigh was responsible for implementing 

related changes for VA and could speak to these issues. He said he selected Mr. Gough, as 

he was the person organizing and planning the intergovernmental aspects of the agenda. 

Secretary Shulkin further stated that he selected Ms. Wright Simpson because she would 

be able to understand and implement any administrative follow-up measures. 

VA Approved the Request to Pay Travel Expenses for Secretary Shulkin’s Wife

On June 1, 2017, Ms. Wright Simpson issued a memorandum estimating costs for the trip 

to be between $5,000 and $8,000 per traveler, inclusive of transportation, lodging, meals, 

and incidental expenses. She identified Secretary Shulkin, Dr. Bari, Ms. Wright Simpson, 

Dr. Alaigh, Mr. Gough, and seven security detail as approved to travel. (Only six of the 

security detail made the trip.) The air transportation cost was $25,478 when the tickets 

10 VA paid the air transportation costs associated with Secretary Shulkin’s wife, Dr. Bari. Dr. Alaigh did not seek 

reimbursement for any expenses associated with her husband’s travel. 

VA Office of Inspector General 3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

were initially purchased, but changes made to the airline reservations resulted in final air 

transportation costs of $42,230, which included $3,492 in travel agency change 

processing fees. VA paid $4,312 for Dr. Bari’s air transportation and $10,498 for 

Secretary Shulkin’s air transportation.11 Dr. Bari did not seek reimbursement for meals 

and incidental expenses, although she had been authorized to do so. The trip ultimately 

cost VA at least $122,334. 

Secretary Shulkin told OIG investigators that his wife had planned to pay for her own 

airfare and expenses, but that several days after advising his staff that Dr. Bari would 

accompany him, his staff told him that “VA was going to pay for her trip.” It was 

Secretary Shulkin’s recollection that his staff first suggested this possibility to him. He 

stated that it was preferable for VA to pay for her airfare “...so that we could travel 

together. Because what happens when she books her own airfare, and I do switch my 

tickets, she is stuck with an unusable ticket.” Secretary Shulkin continued, “...staff told 

me about this. They told me that they had cleared it through ethics. I don’t deal with 

those issues. So, I didn’t question that.” Mr. Gough told OIG investigators that while at a 

reception at the Colombian Embassy on April 27, 2017, Secretary Shulkin asked him if 

VA would be able to pay Dr. Bari’s expenses for the Europe trip.12 Mr. Gough said he 

advised Secretary Shulkin that the decision would need to be made by VA ethics officials, 

but that Mr. Gough would perform “due diligence to see if [the trip] met the 

requirements.” 

On or about May 2, 2017, the Office of General Counsel Ethics Specialty Team (Ethics 

Team) began its analysis of whether VA could pay for Secretary Shulkin’s wife’s travel 

expenses. The Ethics Team requested information from Secretary Shulkin’s staff, which 

was not provided until June 2, 2017, when the VA Executive Travel Coordinator 

contacted the Ethics Team requesting a same-day determination as to the approval of the 

travel authorization request for the Secretary’s wife.13 

11 Secretary Shulkin flew economy class to Copenhagen. However, he and a member of his security detail flew 

business class on the return trip from London to Washington due to a documented medical necessity by Secretary 

Shulkin. Federal travel regulations authorize an agent assigned to the Secretary’s security detail to accompany him 

in business class. 41 C.F.R. § 301-10.123. 

12 The recollections of Secretary Shulkin and Mr. Gough appear to differ as to who first asked whether VA could 

pay Dr. Bari’s travel expenses. May 1, 2017 planning emails between Mr. Gough and a colleague confirm that 

Mr. Gough had a conversation with Secretary Shulkin at the Embassy of Colombia relating to the trip and that up 

until that point the trip planners were operating under the assumption that Dr. Bari would pay for her own travel 

expenses. The OIG does not need to resolve this potential conflict because this fact is not material to the analysis. 13 On May 25, 2017, a travel authorization was created for Dr. Bari by a Special Assistant involved in the trip 

planning. The Director of Administrative Operations approved it the same day. This approval was improper because 

the Office of General Counsel had not yet approved Dr. Bari’s invitational travel, nor had she been officially invited. 

The error was detected in connection with arrangements being made to issue an Official Passport to Dr. Bari 

(US citizens traveling on official federal government business may not use their personal passports). 

VA Office of Inspector General 4 
                             

  

 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

An Ethics Team attorney responded, 

I’ve reviewed this [request for invitational travel order concurrence for 

Dr. Bari] along with Tammy Kennedy (VA’s designated agency ethics 

official), and we have not seen sufficient facts to determine that invitational 

travel orders are permissible in this situation. Tammy has left messages 

with [a staff member] and the Chief of Staff seeking more details. As 

[Senior Ethics Attorney, Jonathan Gurland’s] guidance indicates, VA may 

pay for a spouse’s travel if the spouse’s presence serves a “sufficient 

government interest.” For example, if the employee is receiving an award 

or honor, or the travel results in a direct service to the Government...It’s 

not clear, from the facts presented, that Dr. Bari’s participation serves a 

“sufficient Government interest.” From the facts we’ve received she will 

attend the events, which include health-care topics, but it does not appear 

that she is formally speaking or otherwise providing a direct service to the 

Government. 

The VA Executive Travel Coordinator forwarded the Ethics Team attorney’s email to 

Ms. Wright Simpson, adding, “per the message below from [the Office of General 

Counsel], it doesn’t appear that VA can approve invitational travel orders for Dr. Bari’s 

trip to Denmark/London. Standing by for further guidance.” Ms. Wright Simpson 

responded that she would contact Ms. Kennedy. 

The Chief of Staff Made False Representations to a VA Ethics Official and Altered an

Official Record

Designated Agency Ethics Official (DAEO) Tammy Kennedy confirmed that on June 2, 

2017, she had multiple telephone conversations with an Ethics Team attorney and they 

agreed that additional information was needed if VA were to approve the request for 

Dr. Bari’s invitational travel. Based upon the information available, their analysis could 

identify no direct benefit to VA, and therefore approval could not be granted. 

Ms. Kennedy told OIG investigators that when she spoke with Ms. Wright Simpson, she 

described permissible bases upon which the request must be founded. She stated that one 

such basis included spousal attendance at an event where the Secretary would be 

receiving an award or honor.14 Ms. Kennedy stated that during the call in response to this 

information, Ms. Wright Simpson said that Secretary Shulkin was in fact receiving an 

award from the US Ambassador to Denmark. Ms. Kennedy told OIG investigators that 

Ms. Wright Simpson sounded “confident” in her statement that Secretary Shulkin was 

receiving an award from the US Ambassador in Denmark. Ms. Kennedy stated that 

Ms. Wright Simpson also represented to her that Secretary Shulkin’s travel to Europe, 

14 The OIG does not adopt Ms. Kennedy’s legal conclusion that VA may pay for an employee’s spouse to 

accompany him or her to accept an award from an organization other than VA. 

VA Office of Inspector General 5 
 

 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

including Dr. Bari’s travel, was “approved by the White House,” but Ms. Wright Simpson 

could not recall the name of the individual at the White House who approved the trip.15 

On that same day, shortly after making the oral representation to Ms. Kennedy that 

Secretary Shulkin was expected to receive an award, the following emails were 

exchanged: 

	 Ms. Wright Simpson to Program Specialist Gough: “Hey, when at the event in 

Denmark, will Dr. Shulkin be receiving an award or special recognition[?]” 

	 Mr. Gough immediately replied: “Not that I’m aware of. However, all of the 

planning is still in draft phase, and has not been finalized by Denmark.” 

	 Four minutes later, Mr. Gough sent another email to Ms. Wright Simpson: 

“We’re working on having a dinner at the US Ambassador’s Residence in 

honor of SECVA, but that has not been confirmed by US Embassy 

Copenhagen yet.”16 

	 Ms. Wright Simpson then altered this second email, making it appear that 

Mr. Gough wrote: “We’re having a special recognition dinner at the US 

Ambassador’s Residence in the honor of SECVA.” 

	 Ms. Wright Simpson then forwarded the altered email to Ms. Kennedy with a 

note: “Let me know if you need more.” 

	 Ms. Kennedy emailed in response: “Vivieca – This is exactly what I needed. 

Thanks. I am in the middle of drafting an e-mail which addresses the below 

and should serve as an approval to proceed.” 

15 Ms. Wright Simpson denied that she told Ms. Kennedy that the White House approved Dr. Shulkin’s travel. 

Ms. Kennedy’s contemporaneous notes of her conversation with Ms. Wright Simpson make reference to a 

representation by Ms. Wright Simpson that the White House approved the travel. 16 Mr. Gough stated that these two emails were the only communications he had with Ms. Wright Simpson about a 

reception in Denmark. 

VA Office of Inspector General 6 
 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

The original email Mr. Gough sent to Ms. Wright Simpson and the altered email are 

depicted here. 

Original Email sent from Mr. Gough to Ms. Wright Simpson Altered Email sent from Ms. Wright Simpson to Ms. Kennedy17 

Figure 2. Dotted lines highlight the alteration in the email thread. 

After her communications with Ms. Wright Simpson on June 2, Ms. Kennedy advised 

Ms. Wright Simpson via email that approval would be granted based on her 

understanding that Secretary Shulkin would be receiving an award. In an email sent a few 

moments later, Ms. Kennedy sought further clarification and confirmation from 

Ms. Wright Simpson: 

Vivieca--Ask Mr. Gough to simply, succinctly set forth the nature of the 

special recognition please Vivieca. It is in fact an award, correct? In other 

words, it’s not simply a reception, correct? For the VA’s and Secretary’s 

protection, I am just making sure that no issues are raised in the future. 

17 The 4:56 p.m. time stamp associated with the message “Let me know if you need more” appears out of sequence. 

This is because this time stamp was recorded by the VA email system in Central Daylight Saving Time. 

VA Office of Inspector General 7 
 

 

 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

After initially not responding and receiving a reminder from Ms. Kennedy, Ms. Wright 

Simpson replied six days later, 

This is a diplomatic function and he is acting on behalf [of] the USA. 

Ministerial representatives from Canada, UK, New Zealand and Australia 

will be in attendance. We will be the biggest country there and instructing 

them on what we are doing. He will be sharing our best practices at their 

bequest [sic]. He is a keynote speaker on PSTD [sic]/MH, suicide and

access to care for the VA. We are told he will get a special recognition, 

unfortunately I don’t feel comfortable asking specifically if he is getting an 

award.18 

Ms. Kennedy told OIG investigators that her approval of Dr. Bari’s travel was based on 

Ms. Wright Simpson’s communications and representations (made at least three times) 

that Secretary Shulkin was going to receive a special recognition or award.19 OIG 

investigators showed Ms. Kennedy the original unaltered email that Mr. Gough sent to 

Ms. Wright Simpson as well as the email that Ms. Wright Simpson sent containing the 

altered text. Ms. Kennedy stated that based upon this new information, she would not 

have approved payment of Dr. Bari’s travel.20 

OIG investigators questioned Ms. Wright Simpson twice about the altered text in the 

email she forwarded to Ms. Kennedy. During her first interview, Ms. Wright Simpson 

initially claimed, “I don’t recall whether I changed his email or not.” After a short break, 

Ms. Wright Simpson requested to stop the interview so that she could consult with an 

attorney. OIG investigators stopped the interview. During the subsequent interview in 

which Ms. Wright Simpson was represented by counsel, she provided evasive responses 

to the question of whether she altered the email, repeating “I responded appropriately to 

the email.” Other than her nonresponsive answers, Ms. Wright Simpson maintained that 

she did not recall whether she altered Mr. Gough’s email prior to forwarding it to 

Ms. Kennedy. 

The OIG concluded that Ms. Wright Simpson willfully and knowingly made false 

representations to a VA ethics official and improperly altered an official record. Since 

18 Ms. Wright Simpson’s response to Ms. Kennedy relates to the Secretary’s participation in the London Summit. 

There had never been a representation that Secretary Shulkin was going to get an award in London. Ms. Wright 

Simpson’s earlier representations were that Secretary Shulkin was going to receive an award in Copenhagen. 

19 The OIG found no evidence that Secretary Shulkin was aware of Ms. Wright Simpson’s false representations or 

alteration of official records. 

20 Secretary Shulkin told OIG investigators that he did not receive an award during the Europe trip. At a luncheon 

hosted by the Danish Minister of Defence there was an exchange of what Secretary Shulkin described in his 

interview as “trinkets” that is typical between agencies. The Danish Minister gave a commemorative plaque, and 

Secretary Shulkin gave an engraved coin. Through counsel, Secretary Shulkin later took the position that the 

commemorative plaque (which he did not recall receiving during his interview with OIG investigators) was an 

award. 

VA Office of Inspector General 8 
           

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

Ms. Wright Simpson’s false representations and alteration of an official record may have 

violated federal criminal statutes, the OIG referred this specific matter to the US 

Department of Justice (DOJ) to consider it for potential criminal prosecution; DOJ 

decided not to prosecute at this time. 

Secretary Shulkin Improperly Accepted Wimbledon Tickets

Secretary Shulkin told OIG investigators that his wife is a “big tennis fan.” When he 

learned that the Wimbledon tennis tournament would be taking place while they were 

scheduled to be in Europe, he attempted to get tickets. Secretary Shulkin said that he tried 

to get tickets through commercial websites and found there were no tickets available.21 

Secretary Shulkin stated that he obtained the tickets from Vicky Gosling, whom he had 

met professionally and described to OIG investigators as his wife’s friend. 

According to publicly available information, Victoria Gosling is a UK resident and the 

Head of Social Impact at Auden, a for-profit enterprise; a Military Director of Sage 

Foundation, the philanthropic affiliate of UK software company Sage Group plc;22 and a 

Military Councillor for the Lawn Tennis Association, which is the national governing 

body for tennis in Great Britain, including Wimbledon. Ms. Gosling also served as CEO 

of the 2016 Invictus Games held in Orlando, Florida.23 Secretary Shulkin stated that he 

and his wife met Ms. Gosling at an event at the British Embassy in Washington, D.C., in 

2015. He and his wife also saw Ms. Gosling at two subsequent events—at the Invictus 

Games in Orlando, Florida in 2016 and at the Canadian Ambassador’s home in 

Washington, D.C., on April 3, 2017. 

Six days after the April 3 event at the Canadian Ambassador’s home, the president of a 

US-based nonprofit organization who was acquainted with Secretary Shulkin emailed 

him this inquiry: “Vicky Gosling who is on our steering committee for the Global 

21 Wimbledon tickets are famously difficult to obtain. See Luke Brown, “Wimbledon 2017: When does it start, how 

can I get tickets and how much will they cost?” The Independent July 6, 2017, available at: 

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/wimbledon-2017-start-tickets-where-how-much-cost-price-buy-queueballot-live-qualifying-a7801801.html. Tickets are not made available for purchase by the general public until the day 

before the event. 

22 The Sage Group plc holds contracts with various federal agencies. The OIG has not identified a current contract 

between Sage Group and VA, although a small purchase ($1,147) of Sage software was made by VA in 2007, long 

before Secretary Shulkin’s tenure. More recently, Sage Group (through the Sage Foundation) has sought support 

from VA officials for its philanthropic initiatives supporting veterans. For example, on May 3, 2017, the Sage Group 

plc publicized via Twitter a photo of then Acting VA Deputy Secretary Scott Blackburn and Ms. Gosling at a mental 

health event sponsored in part by the Sage Group. The tweet announced, “It was great to get Dept Secretary Scott 

Blackburn’s support for our Veteran Mentorship Programme.” See also, “Sage Announces Global Program to 

Support Military Veterans Building Business Careers after Service.” Sage plc Press Release. July 27, 2016, 

(describing “Sage Foundation’s ambition to help more veterans build careers in business after military service,” led 

by then Sage North American President, a U.S. Navy Veteran). 

23 The international Invictus games are “Prince Harry’s sporting event for wounded, injured and sick Servicemen 

and women,” https://invictusgamesfoundation.org. 

VA Office of Inspector General 9 
 

 

 

 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

Conference and the former CEO of INVICTUS, asked to be introduced to you [emphasis 

added]–are you fine with me connecting the two of you.” Secretary Shulkin responded, 

“Glad to connect with Vicky.” Other than the three official events described by Secretary 

Shulkin, the OIG found no evidence that Secretary Shulkin and Ms. Gosling met again 

until July 15 at Wimbledon.24 

On June 24, 2017, Secretary Shulkin emailed the same acquaintance to request the 

current email address of Victoria Gosling.25 

After receiving it, Secretary Shulkin sent an email to Ms. Gosling on June 25, 2017: 

I will be traveling to London July 15-20 for a multi-national conference on 

veteran affairs- I don’t know if you are planning on attending. I’ll be with 

my wife and son so we hope to see some of the sights of London as well. 

Not knowing the city would you suggest certain things that we see? Also 

might you have any suggestions on how we might buy tickets to 

Wimbledon on the 15th?” 

Thank so much. 

David Shulkin, MD
 

Secretary 

US Department of Veterans Affairs 

Ms. Gosling responded the same day, 

Your email has just arrived at a perfect time as The Armed Forces 

Councillor I am able to purchase one pair of tickets for Wimbledon per day 

and I had purchased Ladies finals for my sister however she has literally 

just called to say she can no longer attend on 15th – so consider the pair of 

tickets yours. 

Unfortunately the bad news is I am only able to purchase one pair (2

tickets) per day. I will try my best to get a 3rd...I can definitely get a ground 

pass to gain access to the grounds...I can definitely host all 3 of you in the 

24 The communication that Secretary Shulkin agreed to be introduced to Ms. Gosling appears inconsistent with 

statements that his wife was a friend and the tickets were unrelated to his official position, particularly when viewed 

in context with other indicators that no personal friendship existed with his wife as described later in this report. In a 

letter to Inspector General Missal dated February 11, 2018, counsel to Secretary Shulkin provided an affidavit from 

Ms. Gosling stating that she did not ask the mutual acquaintance for an introduction to Secretary Shulkin in April 

2017. During the investigation, OIG investigators interviewed the acquaintance and asked about her email. She 

confirmed that Ms. Gosling did request that the acquaintance broker an introduction to Secretary Shulkin. 25 In his interview with OIG investigators, Secretary Shulkin speculated that he may have had an outdated email 

address used by Ms. Gosling when she served as CEO of the Orlando Invictus games. As detailed later in this report, 

this was the same day that Dr. Bari asked Mr. Gough to try to obtain Wimbledon tickets. 

VA Office of Inspector General 10 
             

 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

Members Enclosure for lunch which is a fun thing to do (only Wimbledon 

membership is allowed – General public can’t access)...Let me know if 

you want the tickets on 15th. 

Secretary Shulkin forwarded Ms. Gosling’s email to his wife, and also responded to 

Ms. Gosling accepting the tickets for himself and Dr. Bari to the Ladies’ Finals match, a 

grounds pass gaining entry to Wimbledon for his son, and an invitation for all three to 

attend lunch in the private members’ enclosure as guests of Ms. Gosling. 

Deleted Posting from Ms. Gosling’s Twitter Account

Figure 3. Tweet and photo from Victoria Gosling on July 16, 2017, of Dr. Shulkin and his family. 

Secretary Shulkin told OIG investigators that his acceptance of tickets to attend 

Wimbledon was not reviewed by VA ethics officials prior to the trip. He said that he did 

not ask VA ethics officials “to approve my personal attendances at events,” and “[t]here is 

no separation between personal and business in the job that I have...this Wimbledon 

event had absolutely no business connection, whatsoever. It had personal reasons why we 

were going. I wouldn’t think about clearing with ethics.”26 He stated that after learning of 

The Washington Post’s “sensational story” about his Europe travel that he decided it 

would be “a good thing to disclose everything that I know about Vicky Gosling and the 

relationship and ask for ethics clearance.” 

26 Three months before Secretary Shulkin received the Wimbledon tickets, he was provided ethics training by VA’s 

Senior Ethics Attorney that covered the rules relating to VA employees accepting gifts. As discussed later in this 

report, acceptance of the tickets was improper. The Senior Ethics Attorney told OIG investigators that although he 

could not specifically recall whether he so-advised Secretary Shulkin, it is his practice when presenting ethics 

training to “advise employees to contact [the Ethics Team] whenever they have any ethics questions about 

participation in official matters or outside activities.” 

VA Office of Inspector General 11 
Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

On September 28, 2017, General Counsel Byrne wrote to DAEO Kennedy: “In an 

abundance of caution, I am asking you or someone on your team [to] conduct an 

expedited ethics review of [Secretary Shulkin’s] acceptance of tickets to a sporting event 

in July in the United Kingdom? It is possible there is already an informal opinion in email 

traffic between your office and [Ms. Wright Simpson]. I have copied Secretary Shulkin 

on this email.” 

At 5:02 p.m. EDT the same day, Ms. Kennedy emailed Mr. Byrne and Secretary Shulkin 

seeking additional information. Ms. Kennedy wrote: 

I am following up on the following question regarding the Wimbledon 

tickets. Under 5 CFR 2635.204 (b) there is a gift exception which provides 

“An employee may accept a gift given under circumstances which make it 

clear that the gift is motivated by a family relationship or personal 

friendship rather than the position of the employee. Relevant factors in 

making such a determination include the history of the relationship and 

whether the family member or friend personally pays for the gift.” Given 

this regulatory provision please advise: 

1. Who is the friend? Where is he currently employed? What is his 

position? 

2. How long have you known this friend? 

3. Where did you initially meet this friend? 

4. I am interested in questions that address that this person was more than a 

mere acquaintance or a business relationship. How often would you and 

this friend take trips or engage in non- business activities? What were these 

trips or non-business activities? Who was present at these trips/non 

business activities? Would you and he often pay for functions/activities for 

one another? 

5. Did this friend pay for this gift or did his company pay for these tickets? 

6. If received from his business, under what circumstances did this friend 

receive the tickets? Were they given without reservation to your friend to 

use as he/she wished? 

At 8:07 p.m. EDT Secretary Shulkin responded by paraphrasing and responding to some 

of Ms. Kennedy’s questions, as follows: 

Who is friend?—Vicky Golsing [sic] 

Where is she employed—Vicky was the CEO [of the] Invictus Games in 

2016 but has since left that position at the end of 2016. When we talked 

with her at Wimbledon she was not employed but was looking at a number 

of options. Her current title that she is using now is strategic advisor for the 

VA Office of Inspector General 12 
Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

Invictus UK delegation- which I believe may be an unpaid position to help 

the team in preparing for the Toronto games. 

How long have you known this friend? 

My wife met Vicky first in October 2015 at the British ambassador 

residence and have been in touch since then several times. The next time 

they saw each other in person was at the Orlando Invictus games a little 

more than a year ago. My wife and she hit it off and have been in contact 

since and spent some time again on Vicky’s visit to the US when she was 

here in March 2017. (its hard to get together more when living 5000 miles 

away). In April Merle told Vicky we were going to London and they made 

a plan to try to get together. There is no business relationship, but purely a 

social friendship between the two of them. We spent time at Wimbeldon 

[sic] with Vicky and her husband. I believe he is active UK military. There 

was no discussion at all about business or any solicitation of any type. 

How did you get the tickets? 

We had contacted Vicky to get together knowing we were going to be in 

London. A week or so before we arrived Vicky told us that her sister had 

just told her that she was no longer going to be able to attend Wimbledon 

and her sister asked Vicky if she could use the tickets. Vicky know[s] 

Merle loves tennis and she invited us. We offered to pay but she insisted on 

taking us as friends. 

Was there a business connection? 

I am not aware of a business connection to these tickets and they were 

personal tickets of Vicky’s sister - if there was any other source of these 

tickets Merle and I were not aware of it. We did not meet or speak to 

another other people at wimbeldon [sic] as this was purely a social time 

together. 

Ms. Kennedy responded to Secretary Shulkin at 8:15 p.m. EDT and advised that based 

upon the information he provided, “the tickets fit within 5 CFR 2635.204, gift exception, 

where the gift is based on a personal relationship.” 

Through counsel, Secretary Shulkin also told OIG investigators that his wife and 

Ms. Gosling met at an official event in 2015 and “hit it off and remained in touch in the 

years since.” The OIG requested that Secretary Shulkin produce any documents, emails, 

or any other information that would corroborate his characterization of the relationship 

between Dr. Bari and Ms. Gosling. Secretary Shulkin’s counsel only produced a twomessage text exchange dated September 28, 2017, in which Dr. Bari sought to reimburse 

VA Office of Inspector General 13 
 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

Ms. Gosling for the Wimbledon tickets, but Ms. Gosling declined.27 Secretary Shulkin 

produced no evidence that his wife and Ms. Gosling communicated with one another 

outside of official events prior the their attendance together at Wimbledon in July 2017. 

The OIG reviewed Dr. Bari’s telephone records and did not identify any calls between her 

and Ms. Gosling between July 2016 and February 1, 2018, other than calls on the 

afternoon of September 28, 2017, when Dr. Bari offered to pay for the Wimbledon 

tickets. The OIG also did not find any evidence that Dr. Bari and Ms. Gosling spent time 

together prior to Wimbledon, other than briefly at the three official group events in 2015, 

2016, and 2017 where Dr. Bari accompanied Secretary Shulkin. 

Figure 4. Text message exchange produced by Secretary Shulkin. 

Through counsel, Secretary Shulkin argues that the form and substance of this text 

exchange proves that Ms. Gosling and Dr. Bari were friends. With respect to the 

substance, OIG observes that the exchange is dated September 28, 2017, and therefore 

cannot be probative of the relationship as of June 25, 2017, when Secretary Shulkin 

accepted the Wimbledon tickets. Moreover, although Ms. Gosling’s text message includes 

well-wishes (e.g., “Hope you’re both keeping well!”), this content appears unusual when 

placed in its context: phone records reflect that at 4:29 p.m. EDT (less than an hour 

before this message was received), Dr. Bari and Ms. Gosling concluded an 11 minute 22 

second phone call. This call commenced immediately after Ms. Gosling emailed 

Secretary Shulkin (4:17 p.m. EDT) to advise him that she had been contacted by a 

journalist regarding the Secretary’s attendance at Wimbledon. Dr. Bari and Ms. Gosling 

conducted another call for approximately 17 minutes beginning at 6:47 p.m. EDT. With 

respect to form, Secretary Shulkin argues that Ms. Gosling’s use of “x” as a closing is 

indicative of a close friendship. Cultural observers have described the frequent use of “x” 

27 This is the same day that General Counsel Byrne sought to obtain an ethics opinion on an expedited basis to 

support Secretary Shulkin’s acceptance of the tickets. 

VA Office of Inspector General 14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

as a Briticism that, when compared to similar American salutations, is distinguishable for 

its casual use and ubiquity.28 

Ms. Kennedy based her conclusion that Secretary Shulkin’s acceptance of the Wimbledon 

tickets was proper based on her understanding that the Secretary and his wife enjoyed a 

personal friendship with Ms. Gosling. OIG investigators provided Ms. Kennedy with 

additional information, including emails indicating that Ms. Gosling was seeking an 

introduction to Secretary Shulkin through an intermediary in April 2017. OIG 

investigators also provided Ms. Kennedy with email correspondence between Secretary 

Shulkin and Ms. Gosling on July 15 and 16, 2017 (starting hours after the tennis match), 

which revealed that Ms. Gosling requested Secretary Shulkin’s assistance in gaining an 

invitation to the London Summit.29 Based on this information, Ms. Kennedy revised her 

ethics opinion and stated that, “[Dr. Bari and Ms. Gosling were] not friends, as 

represented in [Secretary Shulkin’s] response to me.” She stated that the new information 

was “totally inconsistent with the information that [she] was provided.”30 OIG 

investigators also asked Ms. Gosling about the nature of her relationship with Secretary 

Shulkin and his wife. 31 Ms. Gosling summarized, 

I consider them to be friends. I like them. Do I see them regularly? No, I 

don’t. . . Basically, due to the fact that I live over here, they live over there. 

If I lived over there, absolutely, I would spend more time with them, in 

answer to your question. But I don’t. And, actually, I live a very, very busy 

life, as they do. So — but, when I go over there, and I was intending to go 

over there, but I haven’t managed it yet, then I would be absolutely phoning 

28 Eva Wiseman, “The joy of x in texts, tweets, and emails” The Guardian, January 27, 2013, 

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jan/27/joy-x-texts-tweets-emails; Carrie Plitt, “X Please, We’re 

British,” The Junket, January 22, 2014, http://thejunket.org/2014/01/issue-ten/x-please-were-british/. 

29 Secretary Shulkin told OIG investigators that he did not “lift a finger” to assist Ms. Gosling. Ms. Gosling and 

Secretary Shulkin both told OIG investigators that she obtained an invitation from a source other than Secretary 

Shulkin. On July 18, 2017, an organizer of the London Summit wrote to Mr. Gough, “Secretary Shulkin may wish to 

be aware that Victoria Gosling will attend the conference on [Wednesday and Thursday] morning.” Ms. Gosling told 

OIG investigators that, prior to the Wimbledon outing with Secretary Shulkin, she was already scheduled to attend 

the London Summit. Based on her communications with Secretary Shulkin in connection with Wimbledon, her 

statement to OIG investigators appears not to be accurate. 30 The OIG presented the information to Ms. Kennedy prior to the OIG’s unscheduled interview with Ms. Gosling 

on February 6, 2018. At the time of the OIG’s discussion with Ms. Kennedy, Ms. Kennedy knew that the tickets 

were provided to Secretary Shulkin and his wife by Ms. Gosling, but she did not have confirmation that Ms. Gosling 

had paid for the tickets herself. This additional information, learned from the OIG’s discussion with Ms. Gosling, 

does not change the OIG’s conclusion that the friendship exception is inapplicable. The balance of the information 

provided by Ms. Gosling during her interview was consistent with the facts that were considered in the OIG’s and 

Ms. Kennedy’s analysis. 

31 The OIG’s interview of Ms. Gosling was conducted on an unscheduled basis on February 6, 2018. OIG 

investigators identified themselves to Ms. Gosling at the outset of the call and asked if they could interview her. She 

agreed voluntarily. 

VA Office of Inspector General 15 
Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

them and letting them know that I was [in] the city and I would expect to go 

to dinner with them. But there you go. That’s how I feel about them. 

Ms. Gosling’s statement appears to reflect genuine friendliness and good will toward 

Secretary Shulkin and Dr. Bari. Nonetheless, the objective facts as of the date the gift was 

made fail to satisfy the personal friendship exception to the prohibition against accepting 

gifts. Prior to arranging Wimbledon tickets, the interactions between Ms. Gosling, 

Dr. Shulkin, and Dr. Bari (however affable they may have been) were confined to three 

official business events, which Ms. Gosling confirmed during the interview. Additionally, 

during the course of the 26-minute interview, OIG investigators and Ms. Gosling referred 

to Dr. Bari only as Secretary Shulkin’s “wife.” Toward the end of the interview, OIG 

investigators asked whether Ms. Gosling could recall the first name of Secretary 

Shulkin’s wife. After a long pause, Ms. Gosling stated, “You actually -- I think that kept 

throwing me. I’m actually having a genuine blank here.” She was unable to recall 

Dr. Bari’s name before the interview concluded. 

The OIG’s conclusion that neither Secretary Shulkin nor Dr. Bari had a personal 

friendship with Ms. Gosling, as defined by 5 CFR 2635.204, is also supported by an 

example accompanying the rule, which clarifies the personal friendship exception. In that 

example, a government employee meets an individual at an official meeting. Thereafter, 

they granted each other access to their social media networks and communicated 

occasionally. Under this scenario, the government employee would not be able to take 

advantage of the personal friendship exception because “they did not communicate 

further in their personal capacities, carry on extensive personal interactions, or meet 

socially outside of work.” As noted, there is no evidence that Secretary Shulkin or 

Dr. Bari and Ms. Gosling interacted outside of three official functions before the gift of 

the Wimbledon tickets. Therefore, this example supports that the relationship did not 

meet the personal friendship exception. 

An advisory opinion from the Office of Government Ethics explores the circumstance 

applicable here, where a relationship develops exclusively in connection with official 

duties: 

Where a personal relationship develops from an on-going work 

relationship, it can be very difficult to clearly establish that the gift is not 

being given because of the employee’s official position. A gift given out of 

appreciation for some action the employee took, particularly one that relates 

to an employee’s official responsibilities, is not clearly motivated by a 

personal relationship. Therefore, an employee bears a considerable burden 

in establishing that a gift is based on a personal relationship rather than the 

employee’s Government position. This burden may be exacerbated even 

further by testamentary gifts where gifts to non-family members may be 

considered suspect. 

VA Office of Inspector General 16 
 

 

 

 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

One must look to the circumstances surrounding the gift when a personal 

relationship is at issue. Factors indicating a personal relationship include 

the length of time of the relationship, the intimacy of the relationship 

including any family interaction, the nature of personal activities outside 

the work context, and the frequency of outside contacts.32 

In an email response to the OIG’s repeated requests for an interview, Ms. Gosling wrote 

that “[Secretary Shulkin] and his wife are friends of mine.” As noted earlier, she further 

stated that she offered the tickets to Secretary Shulkin and his family “to thank them for 

their personal support to me whilst I was CEO Invictus Games Orlando.”33 Ms. Gosling 

clarified this statement when she spoke with OIG investigators, 

Investigator: Now you had mentioned that, um, providing Dr. Shulkin with 

the tickets was your way to thank him for his support. What did he do 

exactly to support you for the Invictus Games? 

Ms. Gosling: — Look, I had the tickets. I enjoy his company. I enjoy his 

wife’s company. It wasn’t just about thanking him for helping me with 

support because, actually, I had a, a lot of gratitude for the way that the 

U.S. in general supported me when I brought the games across. Not just 

him specifically. I really got on very well with his wife.... 

Federal ethics rules prohibit the solicitation or acceptance of any gift given because of the 

employee’s official position, unless an exception applies.34 In this situation, the OIG 

concludes that Ms. Gosling gave a gift of the Wimbledon tickets because of Secretary 

Shulkin’s official position.35 Ms. Gosling admits that the tickets were given, in part, to 

thank Secretary Shulkin, Dr. Bari, and the “U.S. in general” for support in connection 

32 Advisory Opinion, Office of Government Ethics, Letter to a Law Firm, March 21, 2006 at 2, 

https://www.oge.gov/Web/OGE.nsf/All%20Advisories/C72D3145E59B78BF85257E96005FBE03/$FILE/7be85d5 

345874af8aaf23f452e5aa7954.pdf?open. 

33 The OIG first sought to interview Ms. Gosling on a voluntary basis via an email request on December 15, 2017. 

Investigators made at least 19 additional attempts to contact her on December 18, 20, 21, and January 9, 23, and 24, 

using various methods, including email, text, phone, and courier. The OIG received an email from Ms. Gosling on 

January 30, 2018, stating that she was willing to speak with OIG investigators voluntarily. In that email, she agreed 

to talk with OIG investigators, but she did not thereafter respond to the OIG’s efforts to schedule an interview. OIG 

investigators then contacted her by telephone on February 6, 2018, and conducted an unscheduled interview with her 

consent. 

34 5 C.F.R. § 2635.202. 

35 Secretary Shulkin accepted the tickets without knowing what Ms. Gosling paid for them (though he did inquire 

via email at the time, “Just let me know how much I owe you”). Ms. Gosling told OIG investigators that she paid for 

the tickets with her own funds and that she obtained the tickets at a discount. She was unable to recall the cost of the 

tickets. Secretary Shulkin stated that the combined market value of the tickets and grounds pass was £344 

(approximately $450). The market value of the tickets and grounds pass is “deemed to be the face value” of the 

tickets and grounds pass. 5 C.F.R. § 2635.203. 

VA Office of Inspector General 17 
 

 

 

 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

with the Orlando Invictus Games.36 Secretary Shulkin’s acceptance of the tickets was 

contrary to 5 CFR§ 2635.202(b), which prohibits him from accepting gifts based upon his 

official position. Prior to Wimbledon, there was no evidence that Secretary Shulkin or his 

wife met with Ms. Gosling at an event other than the three gatherings he attended in his 

official capacity. 

In addition, by virtue of her business relationships (whether for profit or not), 

Ms. Gosling may also meet the definition of a “prohibited source,” which would be 

another basis for the gift of the Wimbledon tickets to be improper.37 The OIG was unable 

to fully explore this topic with Ms. Gosling because she did not timely respond to 

repeated requests to schedule an interview.38 However, Ms. Gosling’s status as a 

prohibited source is supported by her association with the Invictus Games, an important 

veterans charitable cause that has accepted support from VA.39 In addition, on July 15, 

2017, in connection with soliciting an invitation to the London Summit, Ms. Gosling 

wrote to Secretary Shulkin and revealed specific business interests that she was pursuing, 

2 days of programme looks great particularly with regards to some of the 

work I'm doing with Invictus Games, the Global Mental Health Strategy, 

and the corporate work with the Career Transition Partnership, and the 

Business in the Community work, along with helping veterans transition 

through the mentoring programme - I would love to be able to attend the 

lectures if at all possible just to listen to the latest thoughts in this space.40 

I am seeing CDS today (Air Marshal ) so I'm happy to ask him if 

I can attend, failing that I wonder if there's anything you can do so that I 

can attend in a US/UK relationship capacity having done so much work 

36 At least one federal court has interpreted the phrase “circumstances ‘make it clear’ that the motivation is personal” 

from 5 C.F.R. § 2635.204(b) to mean that the “personal friendship exception is only applicable if the gift is based 

‘solely’ on a personal relationship” and that it would be improper for a federal employee to accept a gift given “at 

least in part on doing business.” Baltimore v. Clinton, 900 F. Supp. 2d 21, 29 (D.D.C. 2012). Here, the OIG 

concludes that the circumstances of the gift do not “make it clear” that the motivation was personal. 37 5 C.F.R. § 2635.203 states, “Prohibited source means any person who: (1) Is seeking official action by the 

employee’s agency; (2) Does business or seeks to do business with the employee’s agency; (3) Conducts activities 

regulated by the employee’s agency; (4) Has interests that may be substantially affected by the performance or 

nonperformance of the employee’s official duties; or (5) Is an organization a majority of whose members are 

described in paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this section.” 

38 When OIG investigators reached Ms. Gosling, she agreed to do the interview and told investigators near the end 

of questioning that she was in her car. The interview lasted for 26 minutes, which was insufficient to explore all 

relevant topics. 

39 In 2016, VA provided onsite medical care to athletes competing in the Invictus Games Orlando. VA Office of 

Public Affairs, “Hundreds of injured military Veterans from around the globe to compete in the 2016 Invictus 

Games: VA to provide onsite medical and mental health support to international athletes in Orlando,” news release, 

May 6, 2016, https://www.va.gov/opa/pressrel/includes/viewPDF.cfm?id=2786. 40 Ms. Gosling’s email responds to a message sent by Secretary Shulkin during the evening of July 15, 2017 (after 

the Wimbledon match), in which he forwarded a copy of the London Summit agenda. 

VA Office of Inspector General 18 
 

 

 

 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

with the VA and previous administration for Orlando when bringing the 

Invictus Games to USA as the CEO? 

It is never permissible to accept a gift given on the basis of an employee’s official 

position. However, an employee may accept gift if the circumstances make it clear that 

the gift was motivated by personal friendship and not the employee’s official position. 

Similarly, a gift given by a prohibited source may be legally accepted if it falls under an 

exception to the ethics rules, such as a gift received from someone with whom the 

employee has a personal friendship. However, as discussed above, neither the VA DAEO 

nor the OIG believes that there was a personal friendship between Dr. Bari and 

Ms. Gosling as defined in the rules. The OIG does not find that any other exception to the 

prohibition against accepting a gift is relevant in this situation. 

Finally, even if the personal friendship exception did apply in this instance, making the 

gift permissible, Secretary Shulkin should have considered declining the gift on the basis 

of federal ethics standards, which he did not do.41 The Standards of Ethical Conduct for 

Employees of the Executive Branch admonishes employees to “consider declining 

otherwise permissible gifts if they believe that a reasonable person with knowledge of the 

relevant facts would question the employee’s integrity or impartiality as a result of 

accepting the gift.”42 When making this determination, employees “may consider, among 

other relevant factors, whether: (i) The gift has a high market value; (ii) The timing of the 

gift creates the appearance that the donor is seeking to influence an official action; 

(iii) The gift was provided by a person who has interests that may be substantially 

affected by the performance or nonperformance of the employee’s official duties; and 

(iv) Acceptance of the gift would provide the donor with significantly disproportionate 

access.”43 VA policy states that “if after taking these factors into consideration the 

employee believes that a reasonable person would question the employee’s integrity or 

impartiality or the integrity or partiality of VA programs or operations, then the employee 

should not accept the gift.”44 

41 Although Secretary Shulkin did offer to repay Ms. Gosling for the tickets, there is no suggestion that this was 

motivated by a decision to decline a gift on ethical grounds, nor did Secretary Shulkin insist on that basis. Secretary 

Shulkin told OIG investigators that he did not clear the gift with ethics, and that but for the media inquiry on 

September 28, 2017, he would not have done so. 

42 5 C.F.R. § 2635.201(b)(1); VA policy implementing this rule states that employees “must make a preliminary 

determination of whether the employee should accept the gift.” (Emphasis added.) VA Designated Agency Ethics 

Official memorandum, February 23, 2017. (See Appendix A.) 

43 5 C.F.R. § 2635.201(b)(2); VA policy implementing this rule states that employees “must consider” the four 

factors. VA Designated Agency Ethics Official memorandum, February 23, 2017. (See Appendix A.) 

44 VA Designated Agency Ethics Official memorandum, February 23, 2017. (See Appendix A.) Secretary Shulkin 

received in-person ethics training in his office one-on-one with a VA ethics official on March 20, 2017. 

VA Office of Inspector General 19 
                   

 

 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

Through counsel, Secretary Shulkin stated that the decision whether a “legally 

permissible gift should be accepted is the employee’s to make,” not the OIG’s.45 The OIG 

agrees. Here, however, the gift was not legally permissible. Nonetheless, to the extent 

that Secretary Shulkin believed that the gift was legally permissible, VA policy obligated 

him to consider declining the gift. Relevant factors in such an evaluation included the 

reasonable person’s perspective concerning the value of the tickets; the circumstances of 

the relationship with Ms. Gosling, including her requests for access to an international 

summit of veterans’ affairs ministers; Ms. Gosling’s association with charities and 

businesses that have relationships with VA; and other facts discussed throughout this 

report. 

Thus, based on Ms. Kennedy’s revised opinion and the OIG’s independent analysis, the 

gift of Wimbledon tickets, any food, and anything else of value provided to Secretary 

Shulkin and his family by Ms. Gosling that day was an improper gift given on the basis 

of his official position. 

Secretary Shulkin Directed the Misuse of a Subordinate’s Official Time

Mr. Gough told OIG investigators that Secretary Shulkin directed him to coordinate with 

his wife to schedule the tourist activities that they wanted to do on nonofficial time. 

Secretary Shulkin corroborated this account to OIG investigators, stating, “I didn’t have 

any interest in doing this. I basically didn’t care what we did in our off time, and so I 

said, you deal with my wife.” 46 In an email to a colleague referencing this topic, 

Mr. Gough wrote, “Boss told me ‘if she’s happy, I’m happy and you’re happy.’”
 

Mr. Gough told OIG investigators that Dr. Bari had “a lot of different suggestions” for 

tourist activities and that he was responsible for accommodating her requests. 

Mr. Gough stated that his involvement in the planning was necessary in order to 

coordinate security coverage for Secretary Shulkin. However, emails reveal that 

Mr. Gough was serving as a de facto personal travel concierge to the Secretary and his 

wife by providing detailed tourist planning and travel research services on official time at 

Secretary Shulkin’s direction. Mr. Gough’s tourist planning activities were in excess of 

what was reasonably necessary to perform any official security planning duties. For 

45 Secretary Shulkin argues that this analysis is nonbinding and hortatory. Indeed, 5 C.F.R. § 2635.201 uses 

permissive language and there is no penalty for accepting a legally permissible gift. However, Secretary Shulkin is 

also subject to VA policy implementing this rule, which is more insistent in that it requires employees to 

preliminarily consider declining a permissible gift. VA Designated Agency Ethics Official memorandum, February 

23, 2017. (See Appendix A.) 

46 Through counsel, Secretary Shulkin stated that on June 23, 2017 “Mr. Gough on his own initiative undertook the 

detailed planning of tourist activities. Only when Mr. Gough approached the Secretary with this information did the 

Secretary refer Mr. Gough to Dr. Bari.” Irrespective of any self-initiated improper use of official time by 

Mr. Gough, Secretary Shulkin ignores his own stewardship obligations. “An employee shall not encourage, direct, 

coerce, or request a subordinate to use official time to perform activities other than those required in the 

performance of official duties or authorized in accordance with law or regulation.” 5 C.F.R. § 2635.705. 

VA Office of Inspector General 20 
Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

example, on June 23, 2017, the day before Secretary Shulkin obtained the Wimbledon 

tickets from Ms. Gosling, Dr. Bari wrote to Mr. Gough, forwarding a series of restaurant 

and activity recommendations and further inquiring, “Is there earlier flight from 

Copenhagen? Wimbledon tickets? High tea? Roman baths in [B]ath. Would want to do 

baths not just tour.” 

In an email on June 24, Dr. Bari wrote to Mr. Gough: 

Sites to cover, we can go in any order u think works but we like to be busy, 

we often don’t spend too much time at palaces or cathedrals. Secretary 

agrees that need some time to check in with work answer emails or call 

back each weekday so can be flexible in later afternoon after we do 

sightseeing. 

Dr. Bari’s list of sites and activities to cover included Buckingham Palace, Westminster 

Abbey, the Churchill War Rooms, a Thames River cruise, London Eye, Tower Bridge, 

Tower of London (including the Ceremony of the Keys), Shakespeare’s Globe, Trafalgar 

Square, Piccadilly Circus, St. Paul’s Cathedral, Hyde Park, Kensington Palace, and 

Harrods. She also added events to consider, including Wimbledon, theatre tickets, day 

trips (to Stonehenge, Windsor, Bath), and high tea. She concluded her email with, 

“Thanks, I sent restaurants secretary liked under separate pdf.”
 

Although Secretary Shulkin ultimately obtained tickets to the July 15 Wimbledon Ladies’
 

Final, Dr. Bari had also asked Mr. Gough about obtaining tickets to Wimbledon. 

Mr. Gough advised Dr. Bari on June 29 that he was attempting to use diplomatic 

connections to arrange Wimbledon tickets to the Gentlemen’s Final for the Secretary and 

his wife: 

I’m asking ppl from the Embassy and the UK government about 

Wimbledon tickets and have not had much luck. There are still a couple 

more people who have to get back to me, but this is what I’m looking at 

price-wise now just on stubhub. [Mr. Gough’s email included a 

now-expired link to tickets on Stubhub.com for the Sunday, July 16, 2017, 

Gentlemen’s Final at Wimbledon.] 

On Friday, June 30, Mr. Gough sent another email responding to Dr. Bari’s inquiries, 

proposing an itinerary for a day trip that included stops in the UK towns of Windsor and 

Bath: 

Dr. Bari – are you free for a call? This is what the Sunday trip would look 

like to Windsor and Bath. If you’re good with this, please let me know so 

that I can send this day to all the security teams for them to get to work 

on...Everything from Trip Advisor to the actual website has the Roman 

Baths being ruins, and you aren’t able to get in them. It’s more of like 

walking through ruins. I’ve tried looking around the town of Bath to see if 

VA Office of Inspector General 21 
                           

  

 

 

 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

there is a spa that would allow you to do this, but haven’t been successful. 

Is there something you found that I didn’t? 

Dr. Bari responded, “Call me later but i dont think this will work[.]” Mr. Gough 

forwarded this email exchange to another staff member and expressed frustration with the 

many requests he had been receiving from Dr. Bari. He wrote, “I would have been 

finished with this a week ago....” In an email the next day, he told the staff member, 

“Copenhagen is good to go. Dr. Bari changed a lot of stuff for London, so I’m re-doing a 

lot of the unofficial stuff today.” The emails support that his planning efforts were not 

merely incident to the planning of the Secretary’s security detail. Mr. Gough could have 

appropriately conveyed to the security teams the requisite details pertaining to the 

Secretary’s leisure time activities without engaging in the extensive research and 

planning tasks. 

Personal activities for the Denmark trip included touring Amalienborg Palace for the 

Changing of the Guard; visiting Christiansborg Palace, Rosenborg Castle, and 

Frederiksborg Castle; taking a boat tour of Copenhagen from Nyhavn Canal; and 

shopping in Copenhagen. There was also an unplanned excursion across the border to 

Malmo, Sweden, for dinner on their last day, July 14. 

Mr. Gough had official “Trip Book” itineraries printed at government expense for the 

Secretary and the official party at a cost of $100 each (15 copies). The Trip Book 

included the following scheduled visits to tourist sites and activities in London: 

Wimbledon, Thames River Cruise, Trafalgar Square, Churchill War Room, St. James’s 

Park, Buckingham Palace, Hyde Park, and Kensington Palace, Westminster Abbey, 

Piccadilly Circus, St. Paul’s Cathedral, Tower of London, Tower Bridge, Shakespeare’s 

Globe, London Eye, and Windsor Castle. The itinerary section of the Trip Book is 

included as Appendix B. 

The OIG Cannot Determine the “Essential” Nature of the Travel in Keeping with the

Secretary’s Memorandum

On June 29, 2017, less than two weeks before the start of the Europe trip, Secretary 

Shulkin issued a memorandum titled, Essential Employee Travel, which required senior 

VA leaders to determine whether employee travel in their organization was essential. The 

stated purpose of this memorandum was to generate savings through decreased employee 

travel. The OIG cannot determine whether the value of the trip to VA, including the value 

provided by each participant in the trip, was consistent with the Secretary’s 

memorandum.”47 

47 The composition of the VA Delegation meant that three of VA’s most senior leaders were out of the country 

together for an extended period. While in Copenhagen, Secretary Shulkin was informed that The Boston Globe was 

planning to publish a story detailing allegations of substandard care at the Manchester VA Medical Center. Secretary 

VA Office of Inspector General 22 
                   

   

           

     

                 

           

   

                 

         

                 

               

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

The OIG Did Not Fully Assess the Costs to VA

The total cost for the VA delegation to travel to Europe in July 2017 was at least 

$122,334, including $100,987 in traveler-incurred expenses and $21,347 in 

reimbursements to the US Embassies in London and Copenhagen.48 A breakdown of 

costs follows: 

Total Traveler Description

Reimbursements

$42,230 Airfare and associated travel agent fees49

$33,888 Lodging per diem

$15,947 Meals and Incidentals per diem

$9,635 Miscellaneous costs, such as airport parking, airline seat upgrades,

checked baggage fees, gratuities, and laundry

US Embassy Description

Reimbursements

$12,062 US Embassy, London, UK for travel support including vehicles,

chauffeur services, tolls, and parking

$9,28550 US Embassy, Copenhagen, Denmark for travel support including

private wireless internet, driver overtime, vehicles, and baggage

transport

Federal travel regulations and VA policy permit employees traveling on official duty to 

combine official travel with personal travel under appropriate circumstances. When an 

employee elects to combine them, including travel by an indirect route for personal 

convenience, the employee is responsible for paying any additional cost.51 VA requires 

travelers to provide a Travel Cost Comparison Worksheet, which compares the actual cost 

of the trip with and without personal travel expenses. Properly prepared travel 

authorizations help VA and travelers determine when to charge for annual leave, when to 

Shulkin, Dr. Alaigh, and Ms. Wright Simpson were in contact with VA officials in Washington and decided that 

they could manage this crisis from Europe in an effective manner.
 48 OIG investigators have not analyzed indirect costs, such as staffing, overtime, and other costs not recorded in the 

travel voucher system or as part of the interagency agreements detailed here. 

49 The OIG analysis revealed that the initial cost of the airfare for all passengers was $25,478. The $15,699 increase 

occurred due to itinerary changes made by some travelers. The largest increase was associated with Secretary 

Shulkin’s medical need to upgrade his return trip from London to business class. This added $10,355 to the air 

transportation costs ($5,177 each for Secretary Shulkin and his accompanying security detail member). 

50 The OIG did not have access to final cost information from the US Embassy in Denmark. This amount reflects an 

estimate generated by VA travel planning personnel on June 26, 2017.
 51 41 CFR §§ 301-2.2, 301-2.3, 301-2.4, 301-11.21 and VA Travel Administration, Volume XIV, Chapter 1, 

Appendix D (May 2013); see also Appendix A.
 

VA Office of Inspector General 23 
 

 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

reimburse travel expenses, and who is financially responsible if a traveler becomes ill or 

is injured while away from the office. 

On December 7, 2017, a travel coordinator involved in the Europe trip planning told OIG 

investigators that no cost comparisons were prepared.52 Although the full extent cannot 

be determined without further auditing by VA, the OIG determined that arrangements 

made in consideration of personal conveniences did impact the cost of the travel. For 

example, on June 26, 2017, VA travel staff changed the itineraries of Secretary Shulkin, 

his wife, and five other members of the VA delegation to depart on an earlier flight from 

Copenhagen to London in order to accommodate the personal excursion by Secretary 

Shulkin and Dr. Bari to the Ladies’ Final tennis match at Wimbledon. This change 

resulted in $372 in travel agency transaction fees.53 This change also added $1,733 to 

lodging costs because VA paid for an early hotel check-in for six rooms, including for 

Secretary Shulkin and Ms. Wright Simpson.54 

In another example of insufficient documentation, Ms. Wright Simpson’s original 

roundtrip economy class airfare was issued on June 16, 2017, at a cost of $1,101. 

On June 22, 2017, her ticket was modified and the new economy class airfare cost 

$4,041. The dates of the travel remained the same, but the intermediate connection point 

changed from a 210-minute connection in London to a 320-minute connection in New 

York. Travel records are insufficient to determine what justification, if any, was provided 

for this substantially higher-priced routing. 

The OIG identified other insufficiently documented circumstances, which require further 

analysis and validation by VA. For example, when a traveler’s meals are otherwise 

furnished (such as meals included as part of a conference), federal employees must 

reduce the corresponding meal per diem claimed. Travel records indicate that some, but 

not all, meeting attendees reduced their meal per diem claims to account for meals 

furnished during meetings. Documentation was insufficient to determine whether an 

appropriate basis existed for those attendees who did not reduce their per diem meal 

claims. In addition, to the extent that any of the travelers combined personal travel with 

official travel, VA payment for lodging, meals, and incidentals would not be appropriate 

during periods of personal travel. 

52 Secretary Shulkin relies on staff to make travel arrangements and to document approvals and other requirements. 

53 VA incurs transaction fees from its travel agent every time a booking is made or changed. Travel records reflect 

numerous other itinerary changes, totaling $3,492 for all participants. 54 The itinerary reflects a planned arrival at the London hotel between 9:30 and 10:30 a.m. local time. In order to 

accommodate early occupancy at the London hotel, VA paid for two hotel rooms for each of these six travelers on 

the night of June 14, 2017—one in Copenhagen (where the delegation spent the night) and the other in London (to 

ensure immediate access to rooms the following morning upon arrival). 

VA Office of Inspector General 24 
             

 

 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

The OIG observed other irregularities, including potential exchange rate errors, doublereimbursement of room taxes that were itemized and also included in the room rate, and 

one security personnel’s expense voucher that included an inexplicable $3,825 

overpayment for airport parking and $2,718 overpayment for lodging. 

Inadequate documentation makes it impossible for the OIG to determine precisely which 

costs, if any, should have been borne by the traveler, rather than the government. In 

addition, the OIG did not review time and attendance records of participants. 

VA Made Misleading Statements to the Media

VA’s Assistant Secretary for Public and Intergovernmental Affairs John Ullyot told OIG 

investigators that on September 27, 2017, he first learned that The Washington Post was 

working on the previously mentioned news story concerning Secretary Shulkin’s July 

2017 travel to Europe. The next afternoon, General Counsel Byrne directed his ethics 

personnel to “conduct an expedited ethics review of [Secretary Shulkin’s] acceptance of 

tickets to a sporting event in July in the United Kingdom.”55 

On September 29, 2017, The Washington Post reported that according to an emailed 

statement from VA press secretary Curt Cashour, “All of Shulkin’s activities on the 

Europe trip, including his attendance at Wimbledon, ‘were reviewed and approved by 

ethics counsel.’” 

Senior Ethics official Jonathan Gurland told OIG investigators that he had “a bit of a 

visceral reaction” to The Washington Post article, and Ms. Kennedy said the statement 

reflected negatively on them professionally. Ms. Kennedy and Mr. Gurland both told OIG 

investigators that, after reading the article, they contacted General Counsel Byrne to 

protest the portion of the statement that read, “All activities including Wimbledon were 

reviewed and approved by ethics counsel.” Mr. Gurland explained to OIG investigators 

that prior to the Secretary’s travel, VA ethics counsel had only “advised on the one 

narrow issue” of whether VA could pay for Dr. Bari’s travel expenses. In Mr. Gurland and 

Ms. Kennedy’s view, ethics counsel did not approve the acceptance of Wimbledon tickets 

in advance, nor were they ever asked to review or approve “all activities” associated with 

the Secretary’s July 2017 Europe trip. 

Mr. Ullyot told OIG investigators that he drafted the September 29 statement using 

details provided by Secretary Shulkin. He said that Secretary Shulkin dictated portions of 

the statement, including the phrase “all activities including Wimbledon were reviewed 

and approved by Ethics Counsel.” Mr. Ullyot provided a hard copy draft statement to 

55 Mr. Byrne’s request is time stamped 1:23 p.m. EDT. Counsel for Secretary Shulkin provided the OIG with a text 

message from Ms. Gosling to Dr. Bari at 5:16 p.m. EDT, declining to accept Dr. Bari’s offer of reimbursement made 

earlier that day. That was the same text message exchange submitted to the OIG as the only evidence of the personal 

friendship between Ms. Gosling and Dr. Bari over the previous years. 

VA Office of Inspector General 25 
Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

Mr. Byrne for review and approval. Mr. Byrne stated that he “may have edited some of it, 

[but] not much because I only look[ed] at this thing for about 20 seconds” prior to giving 

it “a green light” for release. Neither Mr. Ullyot nor Mr. Byrne could recall whether 

Mr. Byrne actually suggested any revisions to the statement prior to its approval for 

release. 

Secretary Shulkin told OIG investigators that he had “no idea” where that statement 

originated, and that he did not “deal with the media.” In addition, he said, “I generally 

don’t write statements for the VA press secretary...I don’t recall ever sitting there and 

saying to the press secretary, here is what you should say.” He said, “Maybe they showed 

it to me. I don’t know.” Mr. Ullyot stated that he did not confirm the accuracy of the 

statement with VA ethics attorneys involved in the review and approval of the Secretary’s 

activities, but instead consulted only Mr. Byrne. 

Mr. Byrne told OIG investigators his ethics team was “upset about the optics, like ethics 

approved the optics of using taxpayer money to go [to] Europe.” He clarified that in his 

view, the intent behind the statement was to convey that the ethics counsel had “looked at 

the components of the trip that were reviewable by ethics.” Mr. Byrne acknowledged that 

it may have been better if the statement read, “all activities requiring an ethics review 

were reviewed,” rather than “all activities including Wimbledon were reviewed and 

approved by ethics counsel.” However, Mr. Byrne stated that he was rushed in his review 

of the statement before it was released. VA did not issue any subsequent statements to 

clarify the nature, timing, or extent of the ethics review referenced in the September 29 

statement. 

In a video interview with a Washington Post reporter on November 9, 2017, covering a 

number of issues, Secretary Shulkin addressed questions about his attendance at 

Wimbledon. 

Secretary Shulkin:	 Well, this is your chance. Ask me any question you 

want. 

Reporter: Well, all right. The Wimbledon tickets [Secretary 

Shulkin interjects, “Yes?”], did you buy those? 

Secretary Shulkin:	 Yes, they were privately done, no government money. 

Reporter: Okay. So they weren’t given to you as a gift by folks at 

the Invictus Games or anything like that? 

Secretary Shulkin:	 No, we went with friends. There was no business 

connection to that and there was no government 

money and it was on a Saturday for one match and last 

VA Office of Inspector General 26 
 

 

 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

time I heard . . . there’s nothing illegal about going to 

enjoy a sporting event.56 

Secretary Shulkin did not disclose to the reporter that the tickets were a gift from the 

former CEO of the Invictus Games, who was still affiliated with Invictus in another 

capacity when they met at Wimbledon. Secretary Shulkin explained to OIG investigators 

that his response “yes” was an acknowledgement to the reporter that he wished to address 

the question about the Wimbledon tickets, and that he was not responding to the 

substance of the reporter’s question (“Did you buy those?”) when he said “yes.” The OIG 

determined that Secretary Shulkin said “yes” twice in this portion of the reporter’s 

interview.57 The first instance is consistent with Secretary Shulkin’s explanation. 

The OIG concluded that VA’s statement to The Washington Post on September 29, 2017, 

was misleading because it stated that ethics counsel had reviewed “all activities” 

associated with the Europe trip, which was not accurate. The OIG determined that VA’s 

release of the misleading statement was caused, in part, by ineffective legal review of the 

statement by Mr. Byrne. Secretary Shulkin compounded the misconceptions caused by 

VA’s statement by stating that he paid for the tickets and they were not given by someone 

affiliated with the Invictus Games. 

Conclusion

Although the OIG does not assess the value VA gained from the Secretary and his 

delegation’s three-and-a-half days of meetings in Copenhagen and London at a cost of at 

least $122,334, the investigation revealed serious derelictions by VA personnel 

concerning the Europe trip. There were five key findings related to poor judgment and/or 

misconduct: 

First, VA Chief of Staff Wright Simpson made false statements and altered a document so 

that the trip expenses for Dr. Bari would be paid for by VA. The OIG referred this 

conduct to the US Department of Justice (DOJ) for its consideration; DOJ decided not to 

pursue criminal prosecution at this time. 

Second, Secretary Shulkin improperly accepted a gift of two tickets and a grounds pass to 

the Ladies’ Final tennis match at Wimbledon on July 15, 2017. When the OIG provided 

ethics counsel with additional information, she determined that the tickets should not 

56 The OIG agrees that depending on the facts and circumstances, it may not be necessary to seek ethics review for 

attendance at routine and/or low-cost sporting events with friends. As discussed throughout, the OIG concluded that 

the relationship between Ms. Gosling and Dr. Bari and Secretary Shulkin did not satisfy the personal friendship 

exception provided by 5 C.F.R. § 2635.204(b). 

57 The full interview is available for viewing at http://wapo.st/2ztOoyC. 

VA Office of Inspector General 27 
Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

have been accepted as a gift. The OIG separately made the same determination with the 

benefit of even more information adduced in its investigation. 

Third, Secretary Shulkin directed a subordinate to devote the use of official time to 

provide personal travel planning assistance to Secretary Shulkin and Dr. Bari in 

connection with the nonofficial components of the trip. The personal assistance was 

extensive and went beyond what was needed to inform security personnel of their 

movements. 

Fourth, VA’s documentation was inadequate to allow the OIG to assess the accuracy and 

appropriateness of the costs to VA for the trip, but the investigators’ analysis revealed 

discrepancies and potential errors that warrant a closer examination by VA auditors. 

Finally, in response to press attention regarding Secretary Shulkin’s Europe travel, VA 

issued an inaccurate statement to the press that “all activities” of the Europe trip were 

reviewed by ethics counsel. Moreover, in an interview with The Washington Post, 

Secretary Shulkin incorrectly stated that he purchased the Wimbledon tickets and they 

were not a gift from anyone associated with the Invictus Games. 

VA Office of Inspector General 28 
 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

Recommendations

Recommendation 1: Secretary Shulkin reimburses the $4,312 paid by VA to cover 

Dr. Bari’s travel costs.58 

Recommendation 2: Secretary Shulkin consults with the Office of General Counsel to 

determine the value of the Wimbledon tickets; grounds pass; and any food, parking, and 

other tangible benefits Ms. Gosling provided in connection with Wimbledon and 

reimburse that amount to her. If Ms. Gosling declines to accept reimbursement, Secretary 

Shulkin reimburses such amount to the US Treasury. 

Recommendation 3: The Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs confers with the Offices 

of General Counsel, Human Resources, and Accountability and Whistleblower Protection 

to determine the appropriate administrative action to take, if any, against Ms. Wright 

Simpson and any other individuals associated with the Europe trip. 

Recommendation 4: The Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs ensures that a thorough 

audit is conducted of the expense vouchers, travel authorizations, and the time and 

attendance records for all travelers on the Europe trip. Any overpayments should be 

reimbursed to VA by the traveler and any required leave adjustments should be made. 

Detailed results of the audits, including supporting documentation, shall be provided to 

the Office of Inspector General no later than thirty days following the publication of this 

report. 

Recommendation 5: The Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs ensures that the Office of 

General Counsel (i) reviews and enhances the training provided to staff on travel 

planning, approvals, and the solicitation or acceptance of gifts; and (ii) provides refresher 

training on these topics to all travelers on the Europe trip as well as all staff involved in 

the planning and implementation of the trip. 

58 Additional reimbursements may be required as identified by the audit in Recommendation 4. 

VA Office of Inspector General 29 
   

                 

   

                 

Appendix A 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

Appendix A

Relevant Laws, Regulations, Standards of Conduct, and VA Policy

False Statements

18 USC § 1001 – Makes it a felony for anyone, in any matter within the jurisdiction of 

the federal government, who 

knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, 

scheme, or device a material fact; makes any materially false, fictitious, or 

fraudulent statement or representation; or makes or uses any false writing 

or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or 

fraudulent statement or entry. 

5 CFR § 735.203 – Prohibits federal government employees from engaging in 

criminal, infamous, dishonest, immoral, or notoriously disgraceful conduct, 

or other conduct prejudicial to the Government. 

Standards of Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch

5 CFR § 2635.201 – 

(a) Overview. This subpart contains standards that prohibit an employee 

from soliciting or accepting any gift from a prohibited source or any gift 

given because of the employee’s official position, unless the item is 

excluded from the definition of a gift or falls within one of the exceptions 

set forth in this subpart. 

(b) Considerations for declining otherwise permissible gifts. 

(1) Every employee has a fundamental responsibility to the United 

States and its citizens to place loyalty to the Constitution, laws, and 

ethical principles above private gain. An employee’s actions should 

promote the public’s trust that this responsibility is being met. For this 

reason, employees should consider declining otherwise permissible gifts 

if they believe that a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant 

facts would question the employee’s integrity or impartiality as a result 

of accepting the gift. 

(2) An employee who is considering whether acceptance of a gift would 

lead a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts to 

question his or her integrity or impartiality may consider, among other 

VA Office of Inspector General 30 
Appendix A 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

relevant factors, whether: (i) The gift has a high market value; (ii) The 

timing of the gift creates the appearance that the donor is seeking to 

influence an official action; (iii) The gift was provided by a person who 

has interests that may be substantially affected by the performance or 

nonperformance of the employee’s official duties; and (iv) Acceptance 

of the gift would provide the donor with significantly disproportionate 

access. 

* * * 

(4) Employees who have questions regarding this subpart ... should 

seek advice from an agency ethics official. 

5 CFR § 2635.202 – 

(a) Except as provided in this [regulation], an employee shall not, directly 

or indirectly, solicit or accept a gift: 

(1) From a prohibited source; 

(2) Given because of the employee’s official position. 

5 CFR § 2635.204(b) – 

An employee may accept a gift given under circumstances which make it 

clear that the gift is motivated by a family relationship or personal 

friendship rather than the position of the employee. Relevant factors in 

making such a determination include the history of the relationship and 

whether the family member or friend personally pays for the gift. 

Example 3 to paragraph (b): A Peace Corps employee enjoys using a social 

media site on the internet in his personal capacity outside of work. He has 

used the site to keep in touch with friends, neighbors, coworkers, 

professional contacts, and other individuals he has met over the years 

through both work and personal activities. One of these individuals works 

for a contractor that provides language services to the Peace Corps. The 

employee was acting in his official capacity when he met the individual at a 

meeting to discuss a matter related to the contract between their respective 

employers. Thereafter, the two communicated occasionally regarding 

contract matters. They later also granted one another access to join their 

social media networks through their respective social media accounts. 

However, they did not communicate further in their personal capacities, 

carry on extensive personal interactions, or meet socially outside of work. 

One day, the individual, whose employer continues to serve as a Peace 

VA Office of Inspector General 31 
 

Appendix A 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

Corps contractor, contacts the employee to offer him a pair of concert 

tickets worth $30 apiece. Although the employee and the individual are 

connected through social media, the circumstances do not demonstrate that 

the gift was clearly motivated by a personal relationship, rather than the 

position of the employee, and therefore the employee may not accept the 

gift pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section. 

5 CFR § 2635.702 – 

An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the 

endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of 

friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a 

nongovernmental capacity, including nonprofit organizations of which the 

employee is an officer or member, and persons with whom the employee 

has or seeks employment or business relations. 

5 CFR § 2635.704 – 

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. 

5 CFR § 2635.705 – 

(a) Unless authorized in accordance with law or regulations to use such 

time for other purposes, an employee shall use official time in an honest 

effort to perform official duties. An employee not under a leave system, 

including a Presidential appointee exempted under 5 U.S.C. 6301(2), has an 

obligation to expend an honest effort and a reasonable portion of his time in 

the performance of official duties; 

(b) An employee shall not encourage, direct, coerce, or request a 

subordinate to use official time to perform activities other than those 

required in the performance of official duties or authorized in accordance 

with law or regulation. 

Office of Government Ethics (OGE) – OGE Letter, March 21, 2006. A letter sent by 

OGE in response to a request for an advisory opinion stated, in part, under the section 

titled “Legal Authority”: 

The Standards of Conduct ban an employee’s receipt of gifts given by 

prohibited sources or because of one’s official position.... Gifts clearly 

motivated by a family relationship or private friendship, however, are 

excluded from this prohibition.... An employee may not use this exception 

to solicit or coerce the offering of a gift.... Where a personal relationship 

VA Office of Inspector General 32 
Appendix A 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

develops from an on-going work relationship, it can be very difficult to 

clearly establish that the gift is not being given because of the employee’s 

official position.... Therefore, an employee bears a considerable burden in 

establishing that a gift is based on a personal relationship rather than the 

employee’s Government position.... Factors indicating a personal 

relationship include the length of time of the relationship, the intimacy of 

the relationship including any family interaction, the nature of personal 

activities outside the work context, and the frequency of outside contacts. 

VA Designated Agency Ethics Official – Memorandum to All VA Employees, issued 

by Tammy Kennedy on February 23, 2017, stated, 

1. Effective January 1, 2017, the U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) 

amended the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive 

Branch (the Standards) regulations with regards to gifts. The most 

significant revision affects the process for how we as Federal employees are 

to review gifts from sources outside of the Federal Government to 

determine if we may accept the gift. OGE has added a values-based element 

to the process, concerned that employees may not sufficiently analyze 

appearance issues and instead may focus exclusively on whether a gift can 

be accepted under a regulatory gift exception. 

2. The standards now require that when offered a gift from someone outside 

the Government the employee must make a preliminary determination of 

whether the employee should accept the gift. Specifically, the employee is 

asked to consider whether a reasonable person with knowledge of the 

relevant facts would question the employee’s impartiality or integrity, or 

the impartiality or integrity of VA’s programs and operations, as a result of 

accepting the gift. 

3. In making this preliminary determination, the employee must consider 

four factors: value, timing, identification of donor, and access to employees 

of the Department. Does the offered gift have a high market value? Does 

the timing of the gift create the appearance that the donor is seeking to 

influence an official action? Does the donor have interests that may be 

substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the 

employee’s official duties? Would acceptance of the gift provide the donor 

with significantly disproportionate access to VA or VA employees? 

4. After taking these factors into consideration if the employee believes that 

a reasonable person would question the employee’s integrity or impartiality 

or the integrity or impartiality of VA programs or operations, then the 

employee should not accept the gift. Only if the employee believes that the 

employee’s or VA’s integrity will not be questioned should the employee 

then move on to the question of whether acceptance of the gift is legal. 

VA Office of Inspector General 33 
             

Appendix A 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

VA’s Ethics Specialty Team can assist with this preliminary determination 

as well as the subsequent question of the legality of acceptance. 

5. Should you have any questions, the contact information for [the Ethics 

Specialty Team] is attached. 

Federal Travel Regulations and VA Travel Policy

41 CFR § 300-3.1 – Defines invitational travel as 

Authorized travel of individuals either not employed or employed (under 5 

U.S.C. § 5703) intermittently in the Government service... when they are 

acting in a capacity that is directly related to, or in connection with, official 

activities of the Government. Travel allowances authorized for such persons 

are the same as those normally authorized for employees in connection with 

TDY. 

VA Travel Administration, Volume XIV, Chapter 1, Section 010202, February 2017 – 

Subsection (B)(1) Invitational travel involves VA paying for the travel of a 

non-Federal employee, a Federal employee traveling in a non-duty status, 

or consultants (not under an agreement or contract with VA).... Invitational 

travelers are not considered to have an “official permanent duty station” 

within the general meaning of that term. However, these individuals may be 

allowed travel and transportation expenses while traveling on official 

business for the Government away from their home or regular place of 

business and while at the place of employment or service for the 

Government. 

41 CFR §§ 301-2.2, 301-2.3, 301-2.4 – 

(301-2.2) [an] agency may pay only those expenses essential to the 

transaction of official business.... 

(301-2.3) [an employee] must exercise the same care in incurring expenses 

that a prudent person would exercise if traveling on personal business. 

(301-2.4) [the] agency will not pay for excess costs resulting from 

circuitous routes, delays, luxury accommodations or services unnecessary 

or unjustified in the performance of official business. 

41 CFR § 301-11.21 – 

(a) In general, [an employee] will be reimbursed as long as [the 

employee’s] travel status requires [their] stay to include a non-workday, 

(e.g., if [the employee is] on travel through Friday and again starting 

VA Office of Inspector General 34 
                 

Appendix A 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

Monday [they] will be reimbursed for Saturday and Sunday), however, 

[the] agency should determine the most cost effective situation (i.e., 

remaining in a travel status and paying per diem or actual expenses or 

permitting [the employee to] return to [their] official station). 

(b) [The employee’s] agency will determine whether [the employee] will be 

reimbursed for non-workdays when [they] take leave immediately (e.g., 

Friday or Monday) before or after the non-workday(s). 

VA Travel Administration, Volume XIV, Chapter 1, Appendix E, May 2013, sets forth 

specific procedures to be followed when combining personal and official travel. Section 

B(2) of Appendix E instructs employees to “use a Travel Cost Comparison Worksheet to 

compare official travel to official/personal travel.” The worksheet is then “reviewed as 

the cost comparison by [the] approving official.” 

Federal Regulations and VA Policy for Electronic Mail Records

36 CFR § 1234.34 – 

Electronic records may be destroyed only in accordance with a records 

disposition schedule approved by the Archivist of the United States, 

including General Records Schedules. 

VA Directive 6301, Procedures for Handling Electronic Mail Records – 

(2)(a) All Government employees and contractors are required by law to 

make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation 

of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential 

transactions of the agency. In addition, Federal regulations govern the life 

cycle of these records: they must be properly stored, preserved, and 

available for retrieval, and may be disposed of only in accordance with 

authorized records control schedules. 

* * * 

(3)(b) Users of VA electronic mail systems will not alter or improperly 

dispose of any electronic mail message, record of transmission and receipt 

date, or attachment (such as a document) which meets the definition of a 

Federal record received or created on these systems. 

VA Handbook 6301, Electronic Mail Records – 

(2)(f) All VA employees are subject to the provisions of 36 CFR ... as it 

pertains to electronic mail. 

VA Office of Inspector General 35 
Appendix A 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

(2)(g) Electronic mail messages are records when they are made by VA 

under Federal law or in connection with public business; and are preserved 

or are appropriate for preservation as evidence of organization, functions, 

policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the 

Government, or because of the information value of the data in them. 

(2)(h) Prior to deletion of an electronic mail message, independent consideration will be 

made by the sender and the person who receives the electronic mail message whether or 

not it meets the definition of a Federal record. If so, then the message, along with 

essential transmission and receipt data must be preserved for each electronic mail record 

in order for the context of the message to be understood. 

VA Office of Inspector General 36 
   

           

 

 

Appendix B 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

Appendix B
 

Excerpted Itinerary from Official Trip Book59
 

59 OIG did not verify each scheduled activity in order to determine whether there were any deviations from the 

planned itinerary. 

VA Office of Inspector General 37 
 

Appendix B 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

VA Office of Inspector General 38 
 

Appendix B 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

VA Office of Inspector General 39 
 

Appendix B 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

VA Office of Inspector General 40 
 

Appendix B 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

VA Office of Inspector General 41 
 

Appendix B 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

VA Office of Inspector General 42 
 

Appendix B 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

VA Office of Inspector General 43 
 

Appendix B 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

VA Office of Inspector General 44 
 

Appendix B 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

VA Office of Inspector General 45 
 

Appendix B 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

VA Office of Inspector General 46 
Appendix B 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

VA Office of Inspector General 47 
   

Appendix C 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

Appendix C

Comments

The Office of Inspector General received two written responses from the 

VA Secretary and one from the VA Deputy Secretary, which are appended 

in full to this report as Appendices D, E, and F, respectively. 

The following comments were submitted by VA, through the Deputy 

Secretary, in response to the recommendations in the Office of Inspector 

General’s Report: 

Recommendation 1: Secretary Shulkin reimburses the 

$4,312 paid by VA to cover Dr. Bari’s travel costs. 

Comments: The Secretary does not agree with the OIG 

conclusions of fact and law relating to this recommendation 

as presented in the OIG report, however he will consult with 

the Office of General Counsel and if it is determined that he 

should reimburse the Department for any part of Dr. Bari's 

travel costs he will do so. 

Recommendation 2: Secretary Shulkin consults with the 

Office of General Counsel to determine the value of the 

Wimbledon tickets; grounds pass; and any food, parking, and 

other tangible benefits Ms. Gosling provided in connection 

with Wimbledon and reimburse that amount to her. If 

Ms. Gosling declines to accept reimbursement, Secretary 

Shulkin reimburses such amount to the US Treasury. 

Comments: The Secretary does not agree with the OIG 

conclusions of fact and law relating to this recommendation, 

however, he will consult with the Office of General Counsel 

and if it is determined that he should reimburse Ms. Gosling 

for any aspect of his attendance at Wimbledon, he will do so. 

(If Ms. Gosling declines to accept reimbursement, the 

Secretary will reimburse such amount to the U.S. Treasury.) 

Recommendation 3: The Deputy Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs confers with the Offices of General Counsel, Human 

Resources, and Accountability and Whistleblower Protection 

to determine the appropriate administrative action to take, if 

any, against Ms. Wright Simpson and any other individuals 

associated with the Europe trip. 

VA Office of Inspector General 48 
Appendix C 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

Comments: The Department has been inappropriately 

compelled and had an inadequate opportunity to review and 

respond to the Inspector General's report and the evidence 

that accompanied it. When the Department has completed its 

review the Deputy Secretary will in inform OIG as to whether 

it will accept this recommendation. 

Recommendation 4: The Deputy Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs ensures that a thorough audit is conducted of the 

expense vouchers, travel authorizations, and the time and 

attendance records for all travelers on the Europe trip. Any 

overpayments should be reimbursed to VA by the traveler and 

any required leave adjustments should be made. Detailed 

results of the audits, including supporting documentation, 

shall be provided to the Office of Inspector General no later 

than thirty days following the publication of this report. 

Comments: The Department has been inappropriately 

compelled and had an inadequate opportunity to review and 

respond to the Inspector General's report and the evidence 

that accompanied it. When the Department has completed its 

review the Deputy Secretary will in inform OIG as to whether 

it will accept this recommendation. 

Recommendation 5: The Deputy Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs ensures that the Office of General Counsel (i) reviews 

and enhances the training provided to staff on travel planning, 

approvals, and the solicitation or acceptance of gifts; and (ii) 

provides refresher training on these topics to all travelers on 

the Europe trip as well as all staff involved in the planning 

and implementation of the trip. 

Comments: The Department has been inappropriately 

compelled and had an inadequate opportunity to review and 

respond to the Inspector General's report and the evidence 

that accompanied it. When the Department has completed its 

review the Deputy Secretary will in inform OIG as to whether 

it will accept this recommendation. 

VA Office of Inspector General 49 
 

   

               

Appendix D 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

Appendix D
 

February 11, 2018, Response of the VA Secretary
 

VA Office of Inspector General 50 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Justin V. Shur 

Molo Lamken LLP 

600 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20037 

T: 202.556.2005 

F: 202.536.2015 

jshur@mololamken.com 

www.mololamken.com 

February 11, 2018 

By Email 

The Honorable Michael J. Missal 

Inspector General 

Department of Veterans Affairs 

801 I Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20001 

Re: Response to Administrative Investigation Draft Report: 

VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe
 

Dear Mr. Missal: 

We write in connection with your February 7, 2018 Draft Report concerning your 

Office’s investigation into the VA Secretary’s official travel to Europe in July 2017. 

While we appreciate the important role of the Inspector General in protecting against 

fraud, waste, and abuse, we have grave concerns about your draft report. When you appeared 

before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and 

Related Agencies, you explained that VA OIG reports “must be accurate,” “must be fair,” and 

“must be objective.” This report is none of those things.1 

The draft report cannot be published in its current form. It ignores critical facts, 

presenting a one-sided version of events that casts aside evidence contradicting your chosen 

narrative. It improperly applies the relevant regulations, at times mischaracterizing them. And it 

imposes subjective and arbitrary criteria for evaluating the propriety of the Secretary’s actions. 

Examples of our specific concerns are discussed further below. 

1 We understand information contained in this report has been leaked to USA Today. We are deeply troubled by this 

development. As you know, the report and its contents cannot be disclosed to anyone other than in connection with 

official review and comment. We trust that you will refer this serious breach of confidentiality to the Council of the 

Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (“CIGIE”) for investigation by an independent Inspector General. 

51
 

 

The Hon. Michael Missal - 2 - February 11, 2018 

I. The Trip Was Immensely Valuable to the VA 

As an initial matter, the report states that you were unable to determine the value of the 

trip to the VA. Draft Rpt. 19. Determining the value of the trip is, of course, outside your area 

of competence and expertise. It is the Secretary who is responsible for the care of the more than 

20 million veterans in America. It is part of his job to continually learn about and actively 

participate in the developing issues facing veterans. As the Secretary explained in his voluntary 

interview, the trip was immensely valuable to his work and the VA’s mission. 

The Secretary was able to participate in hours of substantive meetings during his visit to 

Copenhagen, meeting with the Danish Ministry of Health to discuss the Danish healthcare 

system; participating in a roundtable discussion to discuss strategies for solutions to the 

population of aging veterans; and taking part in a question-and-answer session with the Danish 

Minister of Defense regarding veterans’ policies. Likewise, the Five Eyes Ministerial Summit 

on Veterans’ Affairs in London—which has regularly been attended by past VA Secretaries— 

was valuable given the Summit’s focus on mental health issues facing veterans. Thus, it is 

obvious that the trip qualified as “essential” travel as described in the Secretary’s June 29, 2017 

Memorandum. 

To suggest that the Secretary’s participation in these conferences may not have been 

sufficiently valuable demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the Secretary’s work 

and the VA’s mission. Secretary Shulkin did nothing wrong in traveling to Europe to meet with, 

and learn from, America’s allies. Attending the conferences in Copenhagen and London was a 

valuable opportunity to strengthen the bond among allied countries whose retired soldiers are 

facing the same struggles as American veterans, and to engage in an idea and information 

exchange that will only improve veteran care on both sides of the Atlantic. 

II. Secretary Shulkin Did Not Improperly Accept Wimbledon Tickets 

Your report notes that Secretary Shulkin, his wife, and his son attended Wimbledon as 

the guests of Victoria Gosling and her husband. They did so on the intervening Saturday 

between the meetings in Copenhagen and London. You suggest that the Secretary’s acceptance 

of those tickets violated the federal gift regulations. Your analysis is highly flawed, both 

factually and legally. Most troubling is your repeated failure to disclose evidence that reveals the 

Secretary did nothing improper.2

 Ultimately, the Secretary violated no ethical regulations in 

accepting the tickets. That conclusion is supported by the attached expert declaration of Andrew 

D. Herman. 

A. The Tickets Were Not a Prohibited Gift 

The federal gift regulations only prohibit government employees from accepting a gift 

from a “prohibited source”—someone who “[d]oes business or seeks to do business with the 

2 See Council for the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, Quality Standards for Investigations 14 (Nov. 

15, 2011) (“CIGIE Quality Standards”) (requiring that IG reports contain “exculpatory evidence and relevant 

mitigating information”). 

52
 

 

 

 

 

 

The Hon. Michael Missal - 3 - February 11, 2018 

employee’s agency”—or from someone who gave the gift because of the employee’s official 

position. See 5 C.F.R. §§ 2635.201(a), 2635.202(b), 2635.203(d). Ms. Gosling is neither. 

Herman Decl. 19, 21. She made clear that she offered the Wimbledon tickets to the Secretary 

out of friendship and not because of his official position. See, e.g., Gosling Decl. ¶¶ 14-15. 

Indeed, your office recognized that Ms. Gosling’s statements during her interview “reflect [a] 

genuine friendliness and good will toward Secretary Shulkin and Dr. Bari.” Draft Rpt. 14. Ms. 

Gosling, moreover, made clear that she would have offered the tickets to the Secretary even if he 

were not a government official. Gosling Decl. ¶ 15. 

Ms. Gosling also is not a prohibited source. See Herman Decl. ¶ 19; 5 C.F.R. 

§ 2635.203(d). You state that Sage Group—for whose charitable affiliate Ms. Gosling 

apparently works—holds contracts with various federal agencies. Your report does not mention, 

however, that the VA is not among them. Ms. Gosling did not do business with the VA, and she 

was not seeking to do business with the VA. Gosling Decl. ¶2. Neither did any employer of Ms. 

Gosling’s. Id.3

 Notably, your report makes no finding to the contrary.4 

Nonetheless, you state that the “prohibited source” requirement “would be another basis 

for the gift of the Wimbledon tickets to be improper.” Draft Rpt. 16. That is wrong for two 

reasons. First, you make no finding that Ms. Gosling was a prohibited source. Herman Decl. 

¶ 16. Second, your approach turns the proper legal analysis on its head. The conclusion that Ms. 

Gosling is a prohibited source is not “another basis” for finding the gift improper; it is, in fact, a 

threshold question. Id. ¶ 22. Your analysis fails at that threshold. 

Because federal employees are prohibited only from accepting gifts from prohibited 

sources or gifts given because of their official position, and because you have not established that 

either occurred here, that should have been the beginning and the end of your analysis. Herman 

Decl. ¶ 22. 

B. Section 2635.201(b) Does Not Prohibit Acceptance of the Tickets 

Having failed to show that Secretary Shulkin was prohibited from accepting the tickets, 

you nonetheless insist that he acted improperly under 5 C.F.R. § 2635.201(b) because acceptance 

of the tickets would lead “a reasonable person [to] question [his] integrity or impartiality.” Draft 

3

 Your report states that Sage Foundation “has sought support from VA officials for its philanthropic initiatives 

supporting veterans,” and identifies as the support an instance where then-Acting Deputy Secretary Scott Blackburn 

posed for a photo at a mental health event sponsored by Sage Foundation. Draft Rpt. 9 n.20. You do not appear to 

have interviewed Mr. Blackburn or to have asked him about this event. Had you done so, you would have learned 

from Mr. Blackburn that the VA offered no financial support to Sage Foundation for that event. 

4

 However, you state—without identifying any supporting evidence—that “[b]y virtue of her business relationships, 

. . . Ms. Gosling may also meet the definition of a ‘prohibited source.’ ” Draft Rpt. 16 (emphasis added). That sort 

of innuendo—unsupported by any reasoned analysis and evidence, and falling well short of an affirmative finding— 

has no place in an objective, impartial, and unbiased report. Indeed, CIGIE’s Quality Standards caution that 

“conjecture [or] unsubstantiated opinion” should play no role in an investigative report. Your prohibited source 

analysis cannot be reconciled with that admonition. If your investigation could not substantiate the allegation that 

Ms. Gosling was a prohibited source, your report should say so. It should not assert without any factual basis that 

Ms. Gosling “may” have been one. 

53
 

 

 

The Hon. Michael Missal - 4 - February 11, 2018 

Rpt. 15; see also 5 C.F.R. § 2635.201. You neglect to mention, however, that §2635.201(b) is a 

“non-binding standard,”5

 that applies only to the acceptance of “an otherwise permissible 

gift[],” 5 C.F.R. §2635.201(b) (emphasis added). Herman Decl. ¶¶24-25. Your suggestion that 

this hortatory regulation applies thus admits that the Secretary was legally entitled to accept the 

tickets. 

Moreover, your office is without authority to opine on the applicability of § 2635.201(b). 

As the Office of Government Ethics (“OGE”) has explained, “[§ 2635.201(b)] does not change 

the fact that the determination as to whether a legally permissible gift should be accepted is the 

employee’s to make.” 81 Fed. Reg. at 81,642. (emphasis added); see also Herman Decl. ¶¶ 2, 5. 

Your report’s failure to disclose any of this simply underscores its lack of objectivity and its bias. 

Regardless, § 2635.201(b) does not apply here. You accurately identify the four factors 

relevant to an analysis under that provision, but you provide no meaningful analysis of how those 

factors apply here. Draft Rpt. 15. Indeed, you discuss only one of those four factors—the value 

of the gift. The Wimbledon tickets were no doubt valuable, but not as valuable as you say. Your 

report improperly relies upon the value of the tickets on the secondary market to suggest that the 

tickets were worth thousands more than their actual value. See Herman Decl. 28-29. 

In particular, you note that the “lowest asking price” for tickets to the 2018 Ladies’ Finals 

at Wimbledon on unspecified “commercial websites” was £1,205.00 (approximately $1,760), 

and you suggest that the cost of attending the 2017 match would have been comparable. Draft 

Rpt. 9 n.19.6

 But the face value of the tickets that Secretary Shulkin and his wife received was 

£155 each, and the ticket for their son cost £34.7 The exchange rate for U.S. dollars to pounds 

sterling on July 15, 2017 was 1.3. Thus, the total value of the tickets that Ms. Gosling provided 

was approximately $450—well below the $3,500 value suggested in your report. 

Moreover, the other factors—the one’s you do not discuss—weigh heavily in the 

Secretary’s favor. See Herman Decl. ¶¶ 30-32. For example, nothing about “the timing of the 

gift creates the appearance that the donor is seeking to influence an official action.” 5 C.F.R. 

§2635.201(b)(2)(ii); Herman Decl. ¶ 30. You identify no official action whatsoever that Ms. 

Gosling’s gift was intended to influence. Nor do you assert that Ms. Gosling is “a person who 

has interests that may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of” the 

5

 Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch; Amendment to the Standards Governing 

Solicitation and Acceptance of Gifts from Outside Sources, 81 Fed. Reg. 81,641, 81,641 (Nov. 18, 2016) (emphasis 

added). 

6

 Stating that you were “not able to determine the availability and cost of 2017 Wimbledon tickets on commercial 

websites after the tournament concluded,” you instead rely on the secondary market value of tickets to the 2018 

Wimbledon tournament. However, you could have determined this information simply by accessing Wimbledon’s 

website, which when accessed two days ago still listed 2017 ticket prices. See Tickets and Ticket Prices, 2017 

Tickets, https://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/atoz/tickets_and_ticket_prices.html (last accessed Feb. 9, 2018). 

7

 OGE has made clear that the value of ticketed events is the face value of the ticket, not any inflated value the 

tickets may have on the secondary market. See Legal Advisory to Designated Agency Ethics Officials Presidential 

Inaugural Events, OGE Informal Advisory Letter LA-16-11, 2016 WL 7404631, at *1 (Dec. 20, 2016); Standards of 

Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch, 57 Fed. Reg. 35,006-01 (Aug. 7, 1992) (rejecting argument 

that tickets be valued at higher than face value). 

54
The Hon. Michael Missal - 5 - February 11, 2018 

Secretary’s official duties. 5 C.F.R. § 2635.201(b)(2)(iii); Herman Decl. ¶¶ 20-21, 31. And 

nothing about the tickets provided Ms. Gosling with “significantly disproportionate access.” 

5 C.F.R. § 2635.201(b)(2)(iv); Herman Decl. ¶ 32. In short, while you emphasize that all four 

factors “must [be] consider[ed],” Draft Rpt. 15 n.29, you in fact only consider one—the value of 

the gift, making that factor outcome-determinative. If OGE intended that to be the analysis, it 

would simply have prohibited federal employees from accepting gifts over a certain value. 

Ultimately, you have no authority to second-guess an employee’s decision to not decline 

a permissible gift under the non-binding and hortatory standard of §2635.201(b). In any event, 

your insufficient analysis involving one of the four appropriate factors simply underscores that 

§ 2635.201(b) did not counsel rejection of the gift here. 

C.	 The Personal Friendship Exception Is Irrelevant 

Your conclusion that the Secretary should not have accepted the Wimbledon tickets is 

based on the “personal friendship” exception under the gift rules. But that exception is only 

relevant if the tickets were a prohibited gift (e.g., if Ms. Gosling was a “prohibited source”). As 

discussed above, the tickets were not a prohibited gift and thus the personal friendship exception 

is irrelevant. Herman Decl. ¶ 22. In any event, your application of the personal friendship 

exception, though legally irrelevant, is deeply flawed. And, most problematically, it rests largely 

on evidence and testimony that was procured through your investigator’s misconduct and 

improper questioning. 

1.	 The Personal Friendship Exception Would Justify Acceptance of the 

Tickets 

You have concluded that the personal friendship exception does not permit acceptance of 

the tickets because, in your view, Ms. Gosling and the Secretary’s wife are not in sufficiently 

close contact—that they did not email or text frequently enough to meet your standard of 

friendship. Draft Rpt. 13-15. The “closeness” of the friendship is not the standard. Rather, the 

exception applies so long as the gift is given “under circumstances which make it clear that the 

gift is motivated by a . . . personal friendship.” 5 C.F.R. § 2635.204(b) (emphasis added). The 

exception is not limited to situations where the friends are “close.” So long as the gift is 

motivated by the friendship—whatever the strength of the bond—the exception applies. 

Here, it is clear that Ms. Gosling’s gift of the Wimbledon tickets was motivated by her 

personal relationship with Dr. Bari and the Secretary. Ms. Gosling told you that herself when 

you interviewed her. As she explained, “I enjoy [the Secretary’s] company. I enjoy his wife’s 

company. . . . I really got on very well with his wife.” Draft Rpt. 16. And Ms. Gosling 

reiterated those sentiments in her declaration. Gosling Decl. ¶¶ 3-5, 7, 9, 13-14. The Secretary, 

moreover, explained during his interview that Ms. Gosling and his wife were friends. And you 

do not dispute that Dr. Bari and Ms. Gosling were friendly on three separate occasions when Ms. 

Gosling had traveled to the United States: at events hosted by the British Embassy, the Invictus 

Games, and the Canadian Embassy. Id. ¶¶ 3-5, 7; Draft Rpt. 9. At these events, Ms. Gosling and 

55
 

 

 

 

 

The Hon. Michael Missal - 6 - February 11, 2018 

Dr. Bari chatted and enjoyed each other’s company in a purely social context. Id. 8 (It was the 

Secretary—not his wife—who attended these functions as a government official and who had 

official duties to perform.) 

You also decry what you perceive to be the lack of emails, text messages, and phone 

records between Dr. Bari and Ms. Gosling, as if the quality of a friendship can be measured in 

emojis. But you wholly ignore the substance of the communications that you did receive: 

Those are not the communications of business associates with a purely professional relationship. 

Indeed, few co-workers sign their emails with “kisses.”9

 Your failure to reveal the substance of 

this text exchange in your report and acknowledge that it supports a showing of friendship 

between Ms. Gosling and Dr. Bari simply underscores that your office did not approach this 

investigation in an objective and unbiased manner.10 

8

 You characterize these interactions as “brief [ ].” Draft Rpt. 13. That is pure conjecture. You cite no evidence and 

invoke no testimony establishing the length of Ms. Gosling’s and Dr. Bari’s interactions, and your finding on this 

point is highly improper. See CIGIE Quality Standards, at 11. Ms. Gosling, moreover, described the interactions 

differently, saying that she spoke with Dr. Bari at length during these events. Gosling Decl. ¶ 7. 

9 See Nadine Epstein, A Whole Lot of History Behind ‘X’ and ‘O,’ Kiss and Hug, The Wash. Post (Feb. 13, 2014), 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/a-whole-lot-of-history-behind-x-and-o-kiss-and-hug/2014/02/ 

13/0c3e218a-9341-11e3-b46a-5a3d0d2130da_story.html?utm_term=.c852bb1171e3. 

10 Your report also fails to acknowledge that the Secretary repeatedly offered—both before Wimbledon and after— 

to pay Ms. Gosling for the tickets. Instead, you suggest that the Secretary only offered to pay for the tickets after 

The Washington Post inquired about them. But you ignore the Secretary’s testimony—and supporting email—that 

he repeatedly offered to pay Ms. Gosling for the tickets prior to that. For example, on July 4, 2017, the Secretary 

wrote Ms. Gosling, “Yes it would be great to be able to use your sister’s tickets . . . just let me know how much I 

56
 

 

The Hon. Michael Missal - 7 - February 11, 2018 

You similarly fail to acknowledge that Ms. Gosling’s own statements “corroborate the 

purported closeness of the relationship over several years.” Ms. Gosling told you—twice—about 

her friendship with Dr. Bari and the Secretary. Indeed, you admit that Ms. Gosling’s statements 

“reflect genuine friendliness and good will” toward the Secretary and his wife. Draft Rpt. 14; 

see also Gosling Decl. ¶¶ 3-5, 7, 9, 13-14. If that is not corroboration, nothing is. 

Finally, you suggest that an example in the rule establishing the personal friendship 

exception supports your conclusion that the exception does not apply to the Wimbledon tickets. 

However, you misrepresent the example. 

According to your account, the example involves a government employee who met an 

individual at an official meeting. The two thereafter “communicated occasionally.” Draft Rpt. 

15. That is not accurate. The example actually states that the “two communicated occasionally 

regarding contract matters” and “did not communicate further in their personal capacities, carry 

on extensive personal interactions, or meet socially outside of work.” 5 C.F.R. § 2635.204(b) 

(emphasis added). That makes all the difference: The example makes clear that, aside from 

connecting on social media, all interactions between the two individuals were work-related. 

That does not describe the relationship between the Secretary’s wife and Ms. Gosling. To the 

contrary, Dr. Bari and Ms. Gosling did communicate in their personal capacities, did have 

personal interactions, and did meet socially. That Dr. Bari and Ms. Gosling met at events 

attended by the Secretary as a government official does not make the interactions between Dr. 

Bari and Ms. Gosling any less social. Indeed, their topics of conversation related to tennis and 

other personal matters, not having anything to do with business. Gosling Decl. ¶¶ 3-5, 7. 

2.	 Your Report Relies on Evidence Adduced Through Investigative 

Misconduct 

Most problematic about your personal friendship analysis, however, is the extent to 

which you rely on evidence gathered through highly improper, highly suggestive, and highly 

unreliable questioning techniques. Your report acknowledges that, after the trip, Ethics Counsel 

reviewed the Secretary’s acceptance of the Wimbledon tickets and determined acceptance of the 

gift was proper.11 

You now dismiss the opinion that Ethics Counsel rendered. According to your report, 

Ethics Counsel has now reversed that opinion based on “additional information” that your 

investigators provided her. Because it is unclear from your report what additional information 

you provided to Ethics Counsel, we requested a copy of the transcript of your interview of her. 

The portion of the transcript we received clearly reveals the questioning that yielded the “revised 

opinion” was highly improper and highly suggestive. It involved long narrative expositions from 

owe you.” Your report makes no mention of this correspondence. And if your investigators asked Ms. Gosling 

whether the Secretary ever offered to pay for the tickets, her response is not mentioned in your report. 

11 Your report appears critical of the fact that Ethics Counsel did not review acceptance of the Wimbledon tickets 

until after the trip. See Draft Rpt. v, 11-13 & n.25. During Secretary Shulkin’s interview, however, your office 

commended the Secretary for seeking out such review: A representative of your office told the Secretary that he 

“appreciate[d] the fact that” Secretary Shulkin “initiated that” ethics review. “That was good,” he said. 

57
58
59
 

 

The Hon. Michael Missal - 10 - February 11, 2018 

In any event, the “additional information” that, according to you, prompted Ethics 

Counsel to reverse her determination does not support the conclusion that the Secretary should 

not have accepted the Wimbledon tickets. Draft Rpt. 14. You say that additional information 

included: (1) “emails indicating that Ms. Gosling was seeking an introduction to Secretary 

Shulkin through an intermediary,” and (2) emails in which “Ms. Gosling requested Secretary 

Shulkin’s assistance in gaining an invitation to the London Summit.” Id. The intermediary’s 

emails do nothing to undermine the Ethics Counsel’s initial conclusion that acceptance of the 

tickets was proper. They convey pure hearsay, and there is good reason to doubt the credibility 

of the author. It simply makes no sense that Ms. Gosling would request an introduction to 

Secretary Shulkin when she had met him three times prior. Id. at 9. Glaringly, when your 

investigators interviewed Ms. Gosling, they apparently never asked her about this topic, once 

again refusing to seek out information that might explain or mitigate suspicions that the 

investigators harbored. Had they done so, they would have learned that Ms. Gosling did not, in 

fact, ask for an introduction to the Secretary in 2017. Gosling Decl. ¶ 6. Nor does Ms. Gosling’s 

request for assistance in securing an invitation to the Summit alter the outcome of the analysis. 

Ms. Gosling obtained that invitation from other sources and, as the Secretary told you, he did 

nothing to help Ms. Gosling obtain an invitation to the Summit. 

We are also concerned that the Executive Summary prominently featured the fact that 

Ms. Gosling could not remember Dr. Bari’s first name when you interviewed her. Draft Rpt. iv, 

16 n.33. Its prominence in the Executive Summary seems designed to make headlines, not 

objectively report the facts. That you relegate this fact to a footnote in your analysis— 

demonstrating that Ms. Gosling’s memory lapse is relatively unimportant—illustrates this point. 

In any event, Ms. Gosling attributed her memory lapse to a mental block and to the 

conduct of your investigators when they interviewed her. Gosling Decl. ¶ 8.13 Your emphasis on 

that memory lapse makes something out of nothing. Such mental blocks happen all the time. 

History abounds with examples of people momentarily and embarrassingly forgetting 

information that they obviously know. The Chief Justice, for example, famously forgot the Oath 

of Office during President Obama’s 2009 Inauguration.14 And Canada’s Prime Minister, Justin 

Trudeau, embarrassingly forgot to mention Alberta when listing all of Canada’s provinces during 

a speech.15 And neither the Chief Justice nor the Prime Minister, when their memories failed, 

faced the rigors of strenuous questioning by adversarial investigators. 

Ultimately, Ms. Gosling had no business before the VA. Ms. Gosling and Secretary 

Shulkin’s wife were friends—as Ms. Gosling herself told you. Under those circumstances, there 

was nothing improper about the Secretary’s acceptance of the Wimbledon tickets. 

13 Ms. Gosling’s account of her interview seems particularly credible given your harassment in trying to secure the 

interview (attempting to contact Ms. Gosling 22 times over the course of seven weeks, Draft Rpt. 16 & n.33) and 

your investigators’ conduct in the interviews of Secretary Shulkin and Ethics Counsel. 

14 Jeff Zeleny, I Really Do Swear, Faithfully: Obama and Roberts Try Again, The N.Y. Times (Jan. 21, 2009), 

http://www nytimes.com/2009/01/22/us/politics/22oath html. 

15 Avi Selk, ‘We Already Know You Hate Alberta’: How Justin Trudeau Managed To Insult an Entire Province, The 

Wash. Post (July 2, 2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/w.p/2017/07/02/we-already-knowyou-hate-alberta-how-justin-trudeau-managed-to-insult-an-entire-province/?utm_term=.7a680384a8d7 

60
 

 

The Hon. Michael Missal - 11 - February 11, 2018 

III. The Secretary’s Statements to the Media Were Not Misleading 

You accuse the VA—and the Secretary—of making misleading statements to The 

Washington Post. Nothing about the Secretary’s statements was misleading. On November 9, 

2017, Secretary Shulkin sat for a nearly hour-long interview with The Washington Post’s Ed 

O’Keefe. They discussed many of the most pressing issues facing veterans today, including 

veterans’ mental health and improvements in VA care. 

Mr. O’Keefe also raised the Secretary’s trip to Europe, asking whether the Secretary 

bought the Wimbledon tickets. According to your report, the Secretary responded, “Yes, they 

were privately done, no government money.” You interpret the Secretary’s response as 

indicating that he had purchased the tickets himself, which you believe is misleading. As the 

Secretary explained during his interview with your agents, however, his initial response to the 

question—“yes”—was not a substantive response to the question but an affirmative indication 

that he would be happy to address that issue. Inexplicably, your report does not mention the 

Secretary’s explanation for his answer to this question. And the substantive response the 

Secretary gave—that the Wimbledon tickets were “privately done” with “no government 

money”—was entirely accurate. 

You further suggest that the Secretary was misleading when he responded to Mr. 

O’Keefe’s question about whether the Wimbledon tickets were a gift from “folks at the Invictus 

Games.” Draft Rpt. 23-24. Your agents never asked the Secretary about this response during his 

interview, and your office has not until now raised any concerns about the Secretary’s response 

to this question. Had these concerns been raised, the Secretary would have explained that his 

answer was entirely truthful. When Ms. Gosling offered the tickets, she was no longer the CEO 

of the Invictus games, instead holding a role as an unpaid strategic advisor to the UK delegation. 

And she in fact purchased the tickets (for her sister, initially) with her own money. Gosling 

Decl. ¶ 10. The cost of the tickets was not paid for or reimbursed by the Invictus Foundation. 

Finally, you suggest that the VA press office issued a misleading statement to The 

Washington Post on September 29, 2017. Specifically, you take issue with the statement that 

“all activities including Wimbledon were reviewed and approved by Ethics Counsel.” As 

Secretary Shulkin explained in his interview, he had nothing to do with the drafting of that 

statement.16 The statement, moreover, was true with respect to the Wimbledon tickets—when 

the VA press secretary emailed that statement to The Washington Post around noon on 

September 29, 2017, Ethics Counsel had reviewed and approved the Wimbledon tickets. 

Moreover, to the extent the statement could have been drafted more clearly, it is apparent 

that the statement was the result of haste, not an intentional effort to mislead. Jim Byrne, the 

VA’s General Counsel, for example, explained that he reviewed the statement for “about 20 

seconds” before clearing its release. And the VA press secretary’s statements to The Washington 

16 You suggest the Secretary’s testimony on this point conflicts with the testimony of John Ullyot, the VA’s 

Assistant Secretary for Public and Intergovernmental Affairs. But your report gives no reason to credit Mr. Ullyot’s 

testimony over the Secretary’s, and you make no specific finding regarding the Secretary’s participation in the 

drafting of the press statement. 

61
 

 

 

 

The Hon. Michael Missal - 12 - February 11, 2018 

Post included inaccuracies that, if corrected, would have benefitted the Secretary. For example, 

the VA press secretary told The Post that Dr. Bari’s “[m]eals and incidentals were covered under 

per diem.” That was not true: Dr. Bari never received a per diem or reimbursement for meals 

and incidentals. Your report does not discuss these inaccuracies, which seriously undermine 

your suggestion that the VA and the Secretary engaged in a campaign to mislead the media. 

Your accusation that the Secretary misled The Washington Post is particularly puzzling, 

given the Secretary’s open and professed commitment to transparency. Indeed, Secretary 

Shulkin has taken the extreme action of posting on the VA website details regarding all his 

travel, including the means of transportation and the composition of the delegation. No other 

agency has been so transparent. And, even beyond the topic of his official travel, the Secretary 

has worked hard to make sure that all components of the VA are held to the highest standards of 

transparency to ensure accountability and guarantee that the civil servants who serve America’s 

veterans are the best in government. 

IV.	 Secretary Shulkin Reasonably Relied on Approval from VA Ethics Officials 

Concerning His Wife’s Travel at Government Expense 

Dr. Bari accompanied Secretary Shulkin—as spouses of cabinet members often do—as 

an invited guest to the conferences in both Copenhagen and London. Indeed, other spouses or 

significant others of the Secretary’s foreign counterparts were present at the London conference, 

too. Your report, however, takes issue with the fact that the VA paid for Dr. Bari’s coach-class 

airfare to and from Europe. 

Dr. Bari’s invitational travel, however, was approved by Ethics Counsel. You question 

the validity of that approval because you allege that the VA Chief of Staff altered emails in order 

to obtain that approval. The Secretary had nothing to do with the process of obtaining approval 

for his wife’s official travel. In fact, Secretary Shulkin and Dr. Bari were prepared to pay for Dr. 

Bari’s travel as they had always done previously. It was only when staff approached the 

Secretary to suggest Dr. Bari’s travel could be reimbursed that Secretary Shulkin became aware 

that was a possibility.17 He neither was aware of nor approved any communications between his 

staff and Ethics Counsel. Your report, however, does not make that clear. Regardless, when 

Secretary Shulkin learned through his staff that Dr. Bari’s invitational travel had been approved 

by Ethics Counsel, he was entitled to rely on that approval—regardless of your allegations of 

impropriety arising from emails that the Secretary never saw and never approved. 

17 Your report states that, according to VA employee Gabe Gough, the Secretary asked if VA could pay his wife’s 

expenses. The Secretary made no such request. As the Secretary explained during his interview, until his staff 

informed him that VA could pay his wife’s expenses as an invitational traveler, the Secretary’s wife had planned to 

pay for her own airfare. Draft Rpt. 4. You note that your office did not need to resolve the conflicting memories 

between the Secretary and Mr. Gough. Id. at 4 n.11. Your report, however, does precisely that: “The OIG found 

that after Secretary Shulkin asked in April 2017 if VA could pay for his wife’s travel expenses . . . .” Id. at ii. 

Regardless, even by Mr. Gough’s account, the Secretary acted appropriately by relying on the approval of Ethics 

Counsel. 

62
The Hon. Michael Missal - 13 - February 11, 2018 

V.	 The Secretary Was Not Involved In or Aware of VA’s Travel Documentation for the 

Europe Trip 

Your report suggests that the VA delegation provided inadequate documentation to 

determine the appropriateness of certain travel expenses. Your analysis is incomplete and raises 

concerns better addressed by the VA at large rather than directed at the Secretary. 

Secretary Shulkin was not involved in coordinating travel for the delegation or otherwise 

planning the day-to-day travel arrangements for the official trip. These tasks were rightfully 

delegated to his staff. That is not unusual. The Secretary’s reliance upon his staff for travel 

coordination and submission of paperwork is particularly appropriate, given that the Travel 

Office staff is well versed in the applicable rules and regulations, and this trip concerned travel 

for other members of the VA. Secretary Shulkin did nothing wrong in relying on his staff to 

submit and prepare such paperwork. Indeed, your office might appropriately be concerned if the 

Secretary were spending his time completing administrative paperwork rather than focusing on 

the important work of improving the healthcare and benefits that America provides its veterans. 

VI.	 The Secretary Did Not Improperly Direct the Misuse of Official Time and Did Not 

Violate Any Regulations by Touring Cultural Sites 

You accuse the Secretary and his wife of inappropriately requiring VA Program 

Specialist Gabe Gough to assist in planning visits for the delegation to tourist and cultural sites. 

According to your report, “Secretary Shulkin directed [Mr. Gough] to coordinate with his wife to 

schedule the tourist activities that they wanted to do on nonofficial time.” Draft Rpt. 17. 

Your report ignores, however, that Mr. Gough began planning those tourist activities 

before Secretary Shulkin told him to do anything. On June 23, 2017, Mr. Gough emailed the 

Secretary: “Sir, I wanted to run what we’ve been planning for the London section of the trip by 

you.” Mr. Gough goes on to explain that the delegation can purchase a “London Pass” to “cover 

all entry fees” at the various tourist sites. And Mr. Gough says he had “thought about a trip to 

Stonehenge, but it’s 2 hours away.” Mr. Gough concludes by inviting the Secretary and Dr. Bari 

to let him know if they are interested in any sites or restaurants that he has not already included 

in the itinerary. Thus, Mr. Gough on his own initiative undertook the detailed planning of 

tourist activities. Only when Mr. Gough approached the Secretary with this information did the 

Secretary refer Mr. Gough to Dr. Bari. And, as the Secretary explained in his interview, he 

referred Mr. Gough to his wife only because, as you might expect, he was too busy to be 

concerned with the details of planning tourist activities. Your failure to disclose that it was Mr. 

Gough who initiated the detailed planning of tourist activities, and that it was Mr. Gough who 

approached the Secretary, is troubling. It presents yet another example of your willingness to 

cherry-pick facts that support your sensationalist narrative rather than objectively report what 

happened. 

Regardless, Mr. Gough had good reason to be involved in planning the non-official 

events during the trip. As he told you himself, his involvement was necessary to coordinate 

security coverage for Secretary Shulkin. Draft Rpt. 17. That effort involved coordination not 

just with the Secretary’s security detail, but also with officials at the American Embassies in 

London and Copenhagen. Indeed, it was security—through Mr. Gough—that suggested the 

63
 

 

The Hon. Michael Missal - 14 - February 11, 2018 

delegation purchase the London and Copenhagen passes. You suggest that Mr. Gough’s 

“planning efforts” went beyond those required to coordinate security, saying that he could have 

done so “without engaging in the extensive research and planning tasks.” Draft Rpt. 18. But as 

we explained, Mr. Gough initiated those planning efforts on his own. 

Dr. Bari, moreover, engaged in her own planning. For example, she reached out to her 

own contacts in London to identify potential tourist sites. And she researched on her own 

restaurants and sites to visit both in London and Copenhagen. To the extent Dr. Bari relied upon 

Mr. Gough to schedule visits and generate an itinerary, she did so because any non-official 

activities had to be coordinated with official activities, VA events, and the schedules of the other 

members of the delegation. It would have been improper and unrealistic for Dr. Bari to engage 

in the necessary communications with VA personnel, the security detail, and diplomatic staff in 

order to undertake all that planning herself. 

Your report also appears to criticize the Secretary for attending any tourist activities at 

all. Your criticisms are both misplaced and unreasonable. As an initial matter, the color-coded 

calendar purporting to show “Scheduled official business” and “Scheduled leisure” is false and 

misleading. See Draft Rpt. ii. You have labeled Tuesday, July 11 a “Day in Transit.” But, until 

he left for the airport that afternoon, the Secretary spent the day treating patients at the New York 

VA. July 11 was thus a workday. Your calendar also suggests that the delegation scheduled 

leisure for half the day on Thursday, July 13. In reality, the delegation attended official events 

through 2:30 p.m., and then resumed official events later that evening for an official dinner 

hosted by the American Embassy. Your report should reflect the official nature of those events. 

Finally, your report fails to designate Saturday, July 15—the day the Secretary traveled from 

Copenhagen to London—as a “Day in Transit.”18 

Your calendar also does not take account of the fact that, during the periods you have 

labeled “Scheduled leisure,” the Secretary was working. Even as the delegation was touring 

cultural sites, the Secretary was taking phone calls, answering emails, and tending to VA 

business. He even gave a radio interview during this time. You acknowledge that the Secretary 

told investigators about those efforts during his interview, yet you stop short of making a finding 

that the Secretary did in fact work throughout the trip. Draft Rpt. 1. That too evinces an 

unwillingness to accept the Secretary’s testimony even when it goes unchallenged and even 

when you could easily have corroborated it. For example, you reviewed over 12,000 documents 

and searched 493,000 emails. Surely, those documents included evidence of the Secretary’s 

efforts on behalf of the VA while overseas, but you do not mention them. You interviewed 28 

individuals in connection with this investigation, including the Secretary’s six-member security 

staff and other members of the delegation. You could have asked them about the Secretary’s 

efforts, but apparently did not. Your investigators’ failure to do so is yet one more instance of 

them seeking out information to further their chosen narrative while suppressing or ignoring 

information that bolsters the Secretary’s testimony. 

18 We have attached to this letter a calendar that more accurately reflects the Secretary’s approximate use of his time 

during the trip. 

64
 

 

 

 

The Hon. Michael Missal - 15 - February 11, 2018 

More fundamentally, there was nothing improper about the Secretary taking time to tour 

sites of historical and cultural significance while in London and Copenhagen. VA travel policy 

expressly permits employees to combine official travel with personal travel. See VA Travel 

Admin. Guide 9-10. And, as you might expect, the Secretary’s hours of work are not limited to 

the standard nine-to-five workday. Indeed, the Secretary is exempt from the typical annual- and 

sick-leave rules, meaning he can take vacation only as the demands of his job allow. See 5 

C.F.R. § 630.211(a)(3). (Rest assured, the Secretary’s “vacations”—to the extent they can be 

called that, given how much he works during those times—are few and far between.) 19 

Nor was it improper for the Secretary to remain in Europe between the two conferences. 

Indeed, the travel regulations would have allowed the delegation to return to the U.S. only if 

“substantial cost savings” resulted. 41 C.F.R. § 301-11.23(b). You make no effort to show that 

flying the entire VA delegation to the U.S. from Copenhagen, only to return to London two days 

later, would have yielded such savings. 

In any event, your report—and its misleading calendar—does not adequately represent 

the number of hours Secretary Shulkin spent on official business. As explained during the 

Secretary’s interview, the vast majority of his time in Copenhagen and London was spent on 

official duties.20 Any sightseeing by the Secretary was incidental to the substance of the trip. 

* * * 

We left the Secretary’s interview on December 14 with grave concerns about the 

objectivity and the fairness with which your office was pursuing this investigation. As we 

explained in our December 21 letter, the conduct of the investigators who interviewed the 

Secretary left us worried that those investigators were intent on portraying the Secretary 

unfavorably and were not impartially obtaining and evaluating the facts. Your Counselor, Mr. 

Wilber, responded that “it is the policy of OIG to review the facts and evidence collected in any 

matter . . . objectively and fairly.” He assured us that your office “will do so here.” That 

promise appears to have gone unfulfilled. 

As we have explained above, your report presents a one-sided account of the 

circumstances surrounding the Secretary’s trip to Europe. It omits critical facts and pieces of 

evidence that contradict your chosen narrative and that make clear the Secretary has done 

nothing wrong. Indeed, it seems obvious that your investigators have failed in some instances to 

even pursue such evidence. And your investigators have relied on interrogation techniques that 

have long since been recognized as unfair, unreliable, and abusive. Your report, moreover, 

confuses and misapplies legal standards in an effort to manufacture violations where none exist. 

19 Your report also mentions shopping in Copenhagen and Malmo, Sweden (only a 30 minute train ride from 

Copenhagen). The Secretary and his wife, however, bought nothing on the trip, except perhaps a few souvenirs for 

VA staff. 

20 Your report notes that during the trip there was a “crisis” unfolding at the Manchester VA. Draft Rpt. 19 n.34. 

The Secretary met that crisis head-on, issuing a statement in a press release and moving swiftly to remove the 

officials responsible for the substandard care at Manchester. 

65
 

The Hon. Michael Missal - 16 - February 11, 2018 

Even after you provided us with a copy of your draft report, your office’s tactics seem 

intentionally designed to prevent a full airing of the facts and circumstances underlying the trip. 

For example, your staff provided a draft copy of the report very late in the evening on Monday, 

February 5, and on February 7, provided us a revised draft that included information from a 

recently conducted interview of a key witness. Nonetheless, you set a February 9 deadline for 

submitting a response. Thus, where standard OIG practice appears to allow up to 30 days for a 

response, you initially afforded us less than five days. And, although your staff acknowledged 

that no external pressures mandated the tight turn-around for our response, our request for more 

time was met with an extension of less than 48 hours, setting the deadline at 6:00 p.m. on 

Sunday, February 11. 

Given the serious nature of the issues raised herein, your draft report cannot be published 

in its current form. Substantial revisions are needed to ensure that the report accurately describes 

the events in question and conveys findings that are appropriately supported by the facts. We 

trust that after reviewing this submission you will reach the same conclusion. However, if you 

do not and decide to publish your report without addressing all the problems we identified, we 

demand you include a copy of this submission and its supporting documentation in its entirety as 

an appendix to your final report. 

 Sincerely, 

Justin Shur 

 Eric Nitz 

 Emily Damrau 

Encls. 

66
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Declaration of Andrew D. Herman 

I, Andrew D. Herman, hereby declare as follows: 

1.	 I am a member of Miller & Chevalier, Chartered, located in Washington, DC. I am 

submitting this declaration at the behest of counsel for Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

David Shulkin, in response to the Draft Report prepared by the Office of Inspector 

General (OIG) for Veterans Affairs (“Draft Report”). The statements and information in 

this declaration are based on my analysis of the Draft Report; my review of applicable 

regulations and published guidance from the United States Office of Government Ethics 

(OGE) and others; and my close to 20 years of experience as an attorney practicing in the 

area of government ethics. 

2.	 As set forth in greater detail below, it is my opinion that, under applicable ethics 

regulations, Secretary Shulkin’s acceptance of Wimbledon tickets was proper; the OIG 

does not establish that Secretary Shulkin received an improper gift. The Draft Report 

utilizes 5 C.F.R. § 2635.201 to find impropriety. That provision, however, is a 

subjective, non-binding standard that does not create liability under the OGE’s Standards 

of Conduct. While the Draft Report also utilizes certain terms applicable to 5 C.F.R. § 

2635.202, the general gift prohibition, it presents neither facts nor analysis establishing a 

violation of that regulation. 

Background and Qualifications 

3.	 I graduated from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law in 1996. In 

1999, I joined the law firm of Brand, Lowell & Ryan, where I practiced until 2013, when 

I joined Miller & Chevalier, my current firm. During my career, I have represented 

members of the United States Senate and House and their staff before the Senate and 

House Ethics Committees. Overall, I have represented more than two dozen clients in 

congressional ethics matters. I currently represent several clients in ethics cases pending 

before the House Committee on Ethics. I have also represented individuals and entities 

in ethics-related civil litigation, including serving as counsel in two trials related to civil 

ethics charges brought by the United States Department of Justice. I counsel several nonprofit organizations, labor unions and lobbying firms on campaign finance rules, 

lobbying disclosure and compliance with applicable ethics rules and regulations. I am 

frequently quoted in the media regarding newsworthy ethics issues. 

Ethics Regulations Relating to Analysis in the Draft Report 

4.	 The Draft Report evaluates Secretary Shulkin’s acceptance of tickets to the Wimbledon 

Ladies’ Final Match on July 15, 2017, from Victoria Gosling. 

5.	 The Draft Report first cites to 5 C.F.R. § 2635.201, the OGE regulation titled “Overview 

and considerations for declining otherwise permissible gifts.” In promulgating the 

regulation, the OGE described § 2635.201 as “a non-binding standard that can assist 

employees in considering whether to decline an otherwise permissible gift.” See 

67
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Exec. Branch; Amendments to 

Standards on Acceptance of Gifts, 81 Fed. Reg. 81,641, 81,641 (Nov. 18, 2016) (to be 

codified at 5 C.F.R. pt. 2635). The OGE also noted that “an employee will not face 

disciplinary action in the event that someone later subjectively disagrees with the 

employee’s analysis” regarding whether a gift is permissible. Id. at 81,642. 

6.	 Section 2635.201 asks employees to consider several factors in assessing whether to 

accept an otherwise permissible gift: “(i) The gift has a high market value; (ii) The 

timing of the gift creates the appearance that the donor is seeking to influence an official 

action; (iii) The gift was provided by a person who has interests that may be substantially 

affected by the performance or nonperformance of the employee’s official duties; and (iv) 

Acceptance of the gift would provide the donor with significantly disproportionate 

access.” 5 C.F.R. § 2635.201(b)(2). 

7.	 While the Draft Report does not cite to 5 C.F.R. § 2635.202, the OGE regulation 

establishing a “[g]eneral prohibition on solicitation or acceptance of gifts,” it discusses 

concepts relating to that section—including gifts from a “prohibited source,” gifts given 

because of an employee’s “official position” and the “personal relationship” exception to 

the rule. As such, for the purposes of my analysis, I have assumed that the Draft Report 

utilized § 2635.202 in concluding that Secretary Shulkin accepted an improper gift. 

8.	 Sections 2635.202(a) & (b) establish that an employee may not solicit or receive a gift 

from a “prohibited source” or because of the “employee’s official position.” Section 

2635.203(d) defines a “prohibited source” as any person who: “(1) Is seeking official 

action by the employee’s agency; (2) Does business or seeks to do business with the 

employee’s agency; (3) Conducts activities regulated by the employee’s agency; (4) Has 

interests that may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the 

employee’s official duties.” 

9.	 Section 2635.203(e) states that a “gift is given because of the employee’s official position 

if the gift is from a person other than an employee and would not have been given had the 

employee not held the status, authority, or duties associated with the employee’s Federal 

position.” 

10. Section 2635.204(b) addresses the “personal relationship” exception to the prohibition on 

certain gifts: “An employee may accept a gift given by an individual under 

circumstances which make it clear that the gift is motivated by a family relationship or 

personal friendship rather than the position of the employee. Relevant factors in making 

such a determination include the history and nature of the relationship and whether the 

family member or friend personally pays for the gift.” 

11. The Draft Report also discusses the market value of the tickets at issue. Section 

2635.203(c) provides that the “market value of a gift of a ticket entitling the holder to 

food, refreshments, entertainment, or any other benefit is deemed to be the face value of 

the ticket.” 

2 

68
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Relevant Factual Background 

12. Secretary Shulkin traveled to London as the leader of a delegation attending the 

Ministerial Summit on Veterans’ Affairs, held from July 18-20, 2017. Draft Report at 2. 

Secretary Shulkin was invited to attend the Summit by the United Kingdom 

Parliamentary Under Secretary of State and Minister for Defence Personnel and Veterans. 

Id. The Summit, which is held every 18-24 months, addresses “challenges facing the 

veteran communities of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the 

United. States.” Id. 

13. Secretary Shulkin accepted two tickets to the Wimbledon tennis Ladies’ Final Match on 

July 15, 2017, from Victoria Gosling. The Draft Report describes Ms. Gosling as a “UK 

resident and the Head of Social Impact at Auden, a for-profit enterprise; a Military 

Director of Sage Foundation, the philanthropic affiliate of UK software company Sage 

Group plc; and a Military Councillor for the Lawn Tennis Association, which is the 

national governing body for tennis in Great Britain, including Wimbledon. Ms. Gosling 

also served as CEO of the 2016 Invictus Games held in Orlando, Florida.” Draft Report 

at 9. However, when they spoke at Wimbledon, Ms. Gosling informed Secretary Shulkin 

that she “was not employed but was looking at a number of options.” Id. at 12. 

Under Applicable Ethics Regulations, Secretary Shulkin’s Acceptance of 

Wimbledon Tickets Was Proper 

14. In concluding that Secretary Shulkin accepted an improper gift, the Draft Report does not 

cite to 5 C.F.R. § 2635.202, the general prohibition on the solicitation or acceptance of 

certain gifts. I interpret this omission as a tacit admission by the OIG that, after an 

extensive investigation, it cannot conclude that Secretary Shulkin violated that 

prohibition. However, the Draft Report does rely on terminology derived from the 

regulation. See Draft Report at 15-16. 

15. Section 2635.202 bars federal employees from soliciting or accepting a gift from a 

“prohibited source,” or one given because of the employee’s “official position.” 

16. The Draft Report asserts that, “[b]y virtue of her business relationships (whether for 

profit or not), Ms. Gosling may also meet the definition of a ‘prohibited source.’” Draft 

Report at 16. Beyond offering this equivocal statement—and failing to cite to the 

relevant gift prohibition—the Draft Report makes no attempt to assess whether Ms. 

Gosling’s interests at the time she made the gift qualify her as “prohibited source,” as 

defined by § 2635.203(d)(1) through (5). 

17. The Draft Report provides no evidence that Ms. Gosling—whom Secretary Shulkin 

believed was unemployed at the time of their meeting (see Draft Report at 12)—was 

seeking official action from the VA, doing business with the VA, conducting activities 

regulated by the VA or had interests that might be substantially affected by Secretary 

Shulkin’s official duties. A substantive “prohibited source” analysis would require that 

the OIG assess Ms. Gosling’s actual interests relating to Secretary Shulkin and the VA at 

3
 

69
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the time that she made the gift. In the absence of such an assessment by the OIG, there is 

no basis for the Draft Report to conclude that Ms. Gosling was a “prohibited source.” 

18. The Draft Report does assert that Ms. Gosling “requested Secretary Shulkin’s assistance 

in gaining an invitation to the London Summit” that Secretary Shulkin was attending. 

Draft Report at 14. Although Secretary Shulkin informed the OIG that he did not assist 

Ms. Gosling in any way (id. at 14 n.26), the purported request is not material to the 

“prohibited source” analysis. If it occurred, Ms. Gosling’s request for assistance in 

attending the London Summit would not implicate any of § 2635.203(d)’s factors relating 

to official actions that could be undertaken by Secretary Shulkin or the VA. 

19. In light of the facts presented in the Draft Report, it is my opinion that Ms. Gosling was 

not a prohibited source at the time that she made the gift to Secretary Shulkin. 

20. The Draft Report also asserts, without citing to the term’s regulatory definition, that Ms. 

Gosling provided the tickets because of Secretary Shulkin’s “official position.” Draft 

Report at 15. In reaching this conclusion, the Draft Report states, “[p]rior to Wimbledon, 

there was no evidence that Secretary Shulkin or his wife met with Ms. Gosling at an 

event other than the three gatherings he attended in his official capacity.” Id. at 15-16. 

21. Without further explanation and analysis, the OIG’s conclusion is a non sequitur. That 

Secretary Shulkin first met Ms. Gosling in his official capacity (years before he was 

Secretary) in no way establishes that he received the gift because of his current position. 

See Example 1 to 5 C.F.R. § 2635.203(e) (where free tickets are offered to “all members 

of the Cabinet,” a gift is given because of employee’s official position). Both Secretary 

Shulkin and Ms. Gosling repeatedly disclaimed any official connection and the OIG 

presents no evidence that Ms. Gosling provided the tickets because of Secretary 

Shulkin’s position, rather than because of their preexisting personal connection. 

22. Because the Draft Report (1) does not find that Secretary Shulkin’s receipt of the tickets 

violated § 2635.202’s general prohibition on gifts, and (2) does not establish that Ms. 

Gosling was a prohibited source, there is no need to address whether the “personal 

relationship” exception is applicable pursuant to § 2635.204(b). 

23. In concluding that “Ms. Gosling gave a gift of the Wimbledon tickets, which were very 

valuable on the secondary market, because of Secretary Shulkin’s official position,” the 

Draft Report cites to and relies on 5 C.F.R. § 2635.201. Draft Report at 15. This 

conclusion incorrectly applies the plain language of the regulation and the OGE’s 

interpretation of the hortatory language. 

24. Section 2635.201 imposes no prohibition on an employee’s acceptance of a gift. Instead, 

it creates “a non-binding standard that can assist employees in considering whether to 

decline an otherwise permissible gift.” See 81 Fed. Reg. 81,641, 81,641 (Nov. 18, 

2016) (emphasis added). 

4 

70
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

25. While the OIG may subjectively believe that Secretary Shulkin should not have accepted 

the Wimbledon tickets, § 2635.201 does not provide authority for the OIG to impose any 

sanction. As OGE General Counsel David J. Apol wrote in a December 21, 2016 legal 

advisory to Designated Agency Ethics Officials, “[t]he new section makes clear that an 

employee who accepts a gift permitted under an applicable exception will not be deemed 

to have violated the Standards of Conduct.” 81 Fed Reg. at 81,649 (to be codified at 5 

C.F.R. § 2635.201(b)(3)).” 

26. Even if the OIG simply wishes to indicate its subjective disapproval of Secretary 

Shulkin’s acceptance of the tickets under § 2635.201, the Draft Report fails to assess 

adequately the four elements listed in § 2635.201(b)(2)(i-iv) that “employees may 

consider when determining whether to decline an otherwise permissible gift.” 81 Fed. 

Reg. at 81,642-81,643. 

27. The	 Draft Report only directly addresses the “market value” of the tickets. See 

§ 2635.201(b)(2)(i) (a relevant factor is whether tickets have “high market value”). This 

assessment is also the source for the OIG’s recommendation that Secretary Shulkin 

reimburse the cost of the “tangible benefits” provided by Ms. Gosling. Draft Report at 

25. 

28. The OIG states that it “was not able to determine the availability and cost of 2017 

Wimbledon tickets on commercial websites.” Draft Report at 9 n.19. Instead, the OIG 

determined that the price for 2018 Wimbledon tickets on “commercial websites” was 

“£1,205.00 (approx. $1,760).” Id. This analysis does not comport with the OGE’s 

regulation for determining the market value of a gift. 

29. Section 2635.203(c) provides that the “market value of a gift of a ticket entitling the 

holder to food, refreshments, entertainment, or any other benefit is deemed to be the face 

value of the ticket.” See also Legal Advisory to designated Agency Ethics Officials 

Presidential Inaugural Events, OGE Informal Advisory Letter LA-16-11, 2016 WL 

7404631, at *1 (Dec. 20, 2016); Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the 

Executive Branch, 57 Fed. Reg. 35,006-01 (Aug. 7, 1992) (considering and rejecting 

argument that tickets should be valued at an amount higher than face value). The 2017 

Wimbledon website—which has remained accessible on the internet at this URL: 

https://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/atoz/tickets_and_ticket_prices.html—lists the 

maximum value of the 2017 Centre Court tickets as £155 (approximately $215) and No.1 

Court standing admission at £34 (approximately $46). Ms. Gosling told the OIG that she 

purchased the tickets at a “discount.” Draft Report at 15 n.31. Accordingly, these prices 

listed by Wimbledon represent the maximum price at which OIG may value the tickets. 

30. While the Draft Report ignores the other considerations in § 2635.201, their application 

does not support its conclusion either. The second factor asks whether the “timing of the 

gift creates an appearance that the donor is seeking to influence an official action.” 

§ 2635.201(b)(2)(ii). The Draft Report demonstrates that the timing of the gift was 

simply tied to the date of the tennis match, rather than any official action by Secretary 

Shulkin. Draft Report at 10. 

5 

71
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

31.	 Section 2635.201(b)(2)(iii) asks whether “the gift was provided by a person who has 

interests that may substantially affected be the performance or nonperformance of the 

employee’s official duties.” As I discussed in paragraphs 20 and 21, there is no 

indication in the Draft Report that Ms. Gosling provided the gift for any official reason. 

32. Finally, the single meal shared by the group does not satisfy the “frequent” interactions 

contemplated by § 2635.201(b)(2)(iv)’s “significantly disproportionate access” 

consideration. See 81 Fed. Reg. at 81,643 (disproportionate access “concern can arise in 

connection with gifts such as frequent” events). 

33. After examining the information contained in the Draft Report, it is my opinion that, 

under applicable ethics regulations, Secretary Shulkin’s acceptance of Wimbledon tickets 

was proper. Because the Draft Report incorrectly applies both the plain language of the 

regulations and the OGE’s interpretation of those regulations, it is also my opinion that 

the Draft Report does not establish that Secretary Shulkin received an improper gift. 

I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed on February 11, 2018	 Andrew D. Herman 

6 

72
73
74
75
76
77

 

   

               

Appendix E 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

Appendix E
 

February 12, 2018, Response of the VA Secretary
 

VA Office of Inspector General 79 
February 12, 2018 

THE SECRET ARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

WASHINGTON 

The Honorable Michael J. Missal 

Inspector General 

Department of Veterans Affairs 

801 I Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20001 

Re:: Administrative Investigation Draft Report 

Dear Inspector General Missal: 

This letter is in reference to the report concerning your administrative investigation into 

my official travel to the conferences in both Copenhagen and London. Shockingly, it appears a 

draft version of the report has already been leaked from your office before I had an opportunity 

to respond . What is more troubling, though, is that the report does not appear accurate or 

objective, and it contains the thread of bias. A report of this nature is a direct assault on my 

spouse, my character, and my unblemished record of service to the Veterans Affairs 

Administration. 

I am proud of my 32 year career as a physician and a medical administrator. Under the 

previous administration, I agreed to leave the private sector, displacing my family, to serve the 

Veterans Affairs Administration. My duty has been to serve our nation's veterans and provide 

them with the care and service they deserve. In light of historical integrity problems that have 

plagued the VA, I have also made it a core objective to root out corruption and negligence. I am 

proud that my service has granted me the ability to serve as Secretary under President Donald 

J. Trump. 

I identify several problems with the accuracy of your report, as well as the way you have 

conducted this ongoing investigation. The current draft report, which I received on February 7th, 

ignores critical facts, improperly applies the relevant regulations, and draws conclusions based 

on subjective and arbitrary criteria. It appears to present a foregone conclusion regardless of the 

full facts of the matter. 

First, I take serious issue with how you've depicted my wife, Merle. Merle has made many 

sacrifices throughout my career in government, including the routine purchase of train travel and 

cancellation of office hours in her private physician practice to join me in Washington. In the case 

of our European trip last Summer, my wife was officially invited to accompany me - as spouses 

of cabinet members often do - to the conferences in both Copenhagen and London. Your office 

has attempted to make political fodder of her being by my side, made possible by taking a 

commercial flight in a coach seat that was pre-approved by our ethics department. To be clear, it 

was the VA that suggested her travel be paid for by the VA, as has been the practice for other 

spouses in similar situations. To clarify once again, I had nothing to do with the process of 

obtaining approval for my wife's travel or otherwise planning the day-to-day travel 

arrangements. Those tasks were delegated to my staff, and I reasonably relied on them to comply 

with all applicable rules and regulations. It is outrageous that you would portray my wife and me 

as attempting to take advantage of the government. 

80
Second, your report forms an inappropriate judgment regarding what my family chooses 

to do with our free time on a Saturday afternoon. My wife and I did what millions of people do 

every day. We went to a sporting event, on our personal time, with a friend . Our friend neither 

has business with nor seeks to do business with the VA She purchased her tickets privately, 

and we offered to reimburse her on several occasions - a fact your office is aware of but chose 

to disregard in your report. 

Third, the entire report seeks to question and undermine the validity of the trip and its 

importance to furthering the work of the Veterans Administration. As already explained but 

disregarded in your report, I met with the Danish Ministry of Health to discuss healthcare 

implementation and the Danish Minister of Defense regarding veterans' policies. The Five Eyes 

Ministerial Summit on Veterans' Affairs in London - which has regularly been attended by past 

VA Secretaries -was similarly valuable given the Summit's focus on mental health issues 

facing veterans. It is a part of my job to continually learn about and actively participate in the 

developing issues facing veterans. To suggest that such meetings have an indeterminate value 

reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of my duties and the mission of the VA as a whole. 

I also want to express that I am deeply concerned over how your office has conducted 

this investigation over the past several months. Despite going through proper channels and 

seeking independent approvals, providing transparent accounting of my travel, and fully 

cooperating with your investigation, you have treated the staff of the Veterans Administration, 

my wife, and my friends with extreme contempt, bordering on badgering and harassment. Your 

staff's conduct related to this investigation reeks of an agenda. Your portrayal of this trip is 

overall and entirely inaccurate. 

When someone shines a flashlight on a problem at the VA, I have publically invited 

floodlight scrutiny of the issue, so I fully understand the importance of your Office's mission. If you 

had properly considered my testimony and recognition of the facts of this case, however, I am 

confident that you would have concluded that I have conducted myself properly, ethically and inline with how I have always served the Veterans Administration. Substantial revisions are needed 

to ensure that the report accurately describes the events in question and conveys findings that 

are appropriately supported by the facts. I look forward to working with you to correct this report. 

It is unfortunate that your initial report, which has already been leaked, is so fundamentally flawed . 

It is important that moving forward we all remain focused on the continued improvements 

required for our country's veterans. Despite the unfair allegations of this report directed at me 

and having done nothing improper, it is essential that our veterans know that all of VA's resources 

are dedicated to this single purpose. I have submitted additional information detailing my 

concerns with this draft report and ask for your consideration of this new information that has not 

yet been properly considered. If after full and fair consideration of these additional items, it is still 

your recommendation that I reimburse the Treasury for the coach airfare and the costs associated 

with the tennis event to my wife's friend , I will comply. 

David J. Shulkin, M.D. 

81
 

   

                 

Appendix F 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

Appendix F
 

February 11, 2018, Response of the VA Deputy Secretary
 

VA Office of Inspector General 82 
83
84
85
 

   

       

Appendix G 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

Appendix G
 

OIG Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
 

OIG Contact For more information about this report, please contact the 

Office of Inspector General at (202) 461-4720 

Acknowledgments 

Office of Investigations 

Linda Fournier, Director 

Alexander Carlisle, Deputy Director 

Charles Millard, Senior Administrative Investigator 

Domingo Alvarez, Administrative Investigator 

Jason James, Administrative Investigator 

Jacob Lay, Administrative Investigator 

Leanne Shelly Watkins, Administrative Investigator 

Michael Smith, Administrative Investigator 

William Tully, Administrative Investigator 

Office of the Counselor to the Inspector General 

Christopher Wilber, Counselor to the Inspector General 

Clifford Stoddard, Attorney Advisor 

R. James Mitchell, Attorney Advisor 

Office of eDiscovery 

Debbie Crawford, Program Manager 

Scott Eastman, Supervisory Management and Program 

Analyst 

Ashley Shingler, Management Analyst 

Office of Inspector General 

Martha Plotkin, Special Assistant to the Inspector General 

VA Office of Inspector General 86 
 

   

Appendix H 

Administrative Investigation—VA Secretary and Delegation Travel to Europe 

Appendix H

Report Distribution

VA Distribution 

Secretary and Deputy Secretary 

Veterans Health Administration 

Veterans Benefits Administration 

National Cemetery Administration 

Assistant Secretaries 

Office of General Counsel 

Non-VA Distribution 

House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

House Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and 

 Related Agencies 

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and 

 Related Agencies 

Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

National Veterans Service Organizations 

Government Accountability Office 

Office of Management and Budget 

Report Suspected Wrongdoing in VA Programs and Operations: 

1-800-488-8244 

www.va.gov/oig/hotline 

VA Office of Inspector General 87