OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Catalyst for Improving the Environment 

Special Report 

EPA Needs to Respond 

More Timely to 

Reports of Investigation 

 Report No. 2007-M-00003 

 May 7, 2007 
Abbreviations 

DOJ U.S. Department of Justice 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Handbook EPA Disciplinary Process Handbook 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

OI Office of Investigations 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2007-M-00003

Office of Inspector General May 7, 2007

At a Glance


Catalyst for Improving the Environment 

Why We Did This Review 

We conducted this special 

review to determine whether 

the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) took 

disciplinary action on employee 

misconduct cases identified by 

Office of Inspector General 

(OIG) Reports of Investigation; 

and if the disciplinary action 

taken was timely, appropriate, 

and in accordance with 

established guidelines. We 

looked at cases closed between 

October 1, 2002, and 

September 30, 2006. 

Background 

Many jobs at EPA require 

employees to deal with the 

public. EPA employees also 

manage, control, and oversee 

Federal funds as well as 

sensitive and confidential data. 

EPA employees must maintain 

the highest standards of 

conduct as representatives of 

the Agency. Failure to deal 

quickly and decisively with 

violations of these standards 

undermines the confidence the 

public will have in the Agency. 

For further information, 

contact our Office of 

Congressional and Public 

Liaison at (202) 566-2391. 

To view the full report, 

click on the following link: 

www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2007/ 

20070507-2007-M-00003.pdf 

EPA Needs to Respond More Timely to 

Reports of Investigation

 What We Found 

While EPA took disciplinary action where deemed appropriate, it did not take 

the actions timely. EPA policies require the Agency to initiate disciplinary 

actions within 30 days from the date the Office of Inspector General’s Office 

of Investigations issues a Report of Investigation. However, EPA took an 

average of almost 200 days to do so. According to several EPA action 

officials, EPA may not take disciplinary action within 30 days because the 

Agency cannot complete the process recommended in the EPA Disciplinary 

Process Handbook within 30 days. EPA officials noted they are often uneasy 

in dealing with the sensitive issues involved, and union involvement can also 

cause delays. Further, EPA officials said it would be helpful if the Office of 

Investigations did followup on the status of pending actions and provided 

reminders. 

For six cases we reviewed, the Agency did not take disciplinary actions that 

were severe enough considering the nature of the misconduct. For example, 

EPA only gave an oral admonishment to an employee who was absent without 

authorization for over 400 hours. Another employee, who pled guilty in court 

to using a credit card stolen from another Federal agency for personal 

purchases, only received a letter of reprimand. A third employee, who pled 

guilty to bank fraud and was sentenced to a day in jail and 5 years probation, 

had a 45-day suspension recommended by the employee’s supervisor reduced 

by the action official to 14 days. 

What We Recommend 

We recommend that the EPA Deputy Administrator: 

1. Re-evaluate the 30-day reporting requirement to consider a timeframe 

more in line with the length of time necessary to accomplish EPA’s

disciplinary process. 

2. In cases when the Agency is unable to meet established timeframes, 

provide an action plan that includes any interim action taken to minimize 

the risks of continued misconduct pending final disciplinary action. 

3. Assure that disciplinary actions taken in employee integrity and 

misconduct cases are sufficient and appropriate. 

The Agency generally agreed with our recommendations, although we would 

like to see the Agency make more of a commitment to dealing with employee 

misconduct. 
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL

May 7, 2007 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Special Report: 

EPA Needs to Respond More Timely to Reports of Investigation 

 Report No. 2007-M-00003 

TO: Marcus Peacock 

 Deputy Administrator 

This is our report on the subject audit conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report contains findings that describe the 

problems the OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report 

represents the opinion of the OIG and does not necessarily represent the final EPA position. 

Final determinations on matters in this report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with 

established audit resolution procedures. The findings described in the report are not binding 

upon EPA in any enforcement proceeding brought by EPA or the Department of Justice. 

The estimated cost of this report – calculated by multiplying the project’s staff days by the 

applicable daily full cost billing rates in effect at the time – is $35,537. 

Action Required 

In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, you are required to provide a written response to the 

findings and recommendations in this report within 90 days of the report date. You should 

include a corrective actions plan for agreed upon actions, including milestone dates. We have no 

objections to the further release of this report to the public. This report will be available at 

http://www.epa.gov/oig. 

If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact Stephen J. Nesbitt, 

Assistant Inspector General for Investigations, at (202) 566-0817 or nesbitt.stephen@epa.gov; 

or Larry Valett, Project Manager, at (202) 566-0815 or valett.larry@epa.gov. 

 Bill A. Roderick 

 Acting Inspector General 
EPA Needs to Respond More Timely to Reports of Investigation 

Table of Contents 

Purpose.................................................................................................................... 1

Background .......................................................................................................................... 1 

Noteworthy Achievements.............................................................................................. 2

Scope and Methodology......................................................................................... 3

Results of Review.................................................................................................... 3

EPA Actions Not Timely ............................................................................................. 3 

EPA Actions Not Sufficient......................................................................................... 5 

Conclusion............................................................................................................... 7

Recommendations .................................................................................................. 7

Agency Response and OIG Comments................................................................. 7

Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits .......................... 9

Appendices 

A EPA’s Disciplinary Process ...................................................................... 10

B The Douglas Factors ................................................................................. 11

C Table of Offenses and Penalties............................................................... 12 

D Agency Response...................................................................................... 14 

E Distribution................................................................................................. 16 
Purpose 

The overall role of the Office of Investigations (OI) within the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) is to promote the integrity of Agency programs 

and personnel. OI is responsible for detecting and investigating indications or allegations of 

violations of Federal criminal law, violations of regulations, or other irregularities indicating 

potential misconduct. These allegations can range from making false claims or statements, 

fraud, theft, misuse of Government equipment, conflicts of interest, ethics violations, and other 

matters. Our objective was to determine whether EPA took appropriate administrative action on 

those cases when OI investigations verified the allegations against EPA employees; and assess 

whether such action was timely, consistent with the matters investigated, and in accordance with 

established laws, regulations, and policies. 

Background 

The Inspector General Act of 1978 requires the EPA OIG to conduct and supervise audits and 

investigations of EPA programs and operations. It is the OIG’s responsibility to: (1) investigate 

complaints against EPA employees; and (2) investigate information received about activities that 

may constitute a violation of law, rule, or regulation; mismanagement; waste of funds; abuse of 

authority; or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety. 

Investigations often involve EPA employees concerning allegations of serious misconduct, 

conflicts of interest, and criminal activity. OI evaluates the allegations to determine whether an 

investigation is warranted and appropriately focuses resources where needed. This approach is 

particularly important in evaluating many complaints of employee misconduct where referrals 

may be made to (and immediate corrective action can be taken by) Agency officials without the 

necessity of an investigation by the OIG. 

Investigations of EPA employees fall under the following categories: 

A. Criminal Matters. The OIG investigates criminal matters involving waste, fraud, and 

abuse by EPA employees, contractors, or grantees. In some instances, the OIG may refer 

certain criminal matters to other Federal agencies if the matter does not fall within the 

jurisdiction of the OIG, or depending upon other circumstances. 

B. Ethical Conduct. The OIG investigates allegations against employees for ethical or 

other conduct prejudicial to the Government (5 Code of Federal Regulations Part 2635 and 

40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 3). 

OI generally presents the results of employee investigations by issuing a Report of Investigation 

to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the EPA program or action official, or both. Due to the 

differences in judicial districts, DOJ may not always require a Report of Investigation for 

criminal prosecution. However, OI will generally issue a Report of Investigation so that the 

Agency can take disciplinary action regardless of whether DOJ prosecutes the employee. 

1 
OI would not generally issue a Report of Investigation if the employee resigns from EPA before 

completing the investigation because EPA is no longer in a position to take action. Nonetheless, 

DOJ may prosecute cases of criminal misconduct regardless of whether the person is a current 

EPA employee. When OI issues a Report of Investigation to the Agency, the action officials 

must adjudicate or initiate appropriate administrative action within 30 days of the date of the 

report, as per EPA Manual 6500, and notify the OIG of the proposed action. 

OI investigates indications or allegations of violations of Federal criminal law, regulations, and 

other irregularities by EPA employees. These allegations can range from making false claims 

(such as travel vouchers or other claims for reimbursements), false statements, the misuse of 

Government equipment (such as Government automobiles or computers), conflicts of interest, 

ethics violations, and other matters. Reports of Investigation do not include conclusions or 

recommendations; they simply report the facts of a situation. Any actions resulting from 

investigations become the responsibility of management to follow up and take action. 

Between October 1, 2002, and September 30, 

2006, the OI closed 69 cases involving the 

integrity or conduct of EPA employees. Table 1 

lists the types of cases. 

EPA’s overall reputation is at stake whenever 

employee actions have a detrimental effect on 

the Agency's reputation. EPA cannot 

reasonably expect the regulated community to 

take environmental regulations or guidance 

seriously if it does not require its employees to 

comply with the rules relating to ethical 

conduct. Many jobs at EPA require employees 

to deal with the public; and manage, control, 

and oversee Federal funds and sensitive and 

confidential data. For that reason, it is crucial 

that EPA employees maintain the highest 

standards of conduct as representatives of the 

Table 1: Types of Cases Investigated 

Type of Case No. of Cases 

Bribery 2 

Conflict of interest 21 

Conspiracy 2 

Credit card misuse 3 

Embezzlement 3 

False claims 5 

False statements 10 

Forgery 3 

General crimes 3 

Impersonation/misrepresentation 1 

Misuse of Government property 7 

Narcotics 1 

Stolen property 3 

Theft 2 

Wire fraud 3 

 Total cases 69 

Agency and the Federal Government. Failure to Source: OIG case file database 

deal quickly and decisively with violations of 

these principles undermines that confidence. In one Regional Administrator’s decision, EPA 

stated that these types of matters are extremely serious, and EPA cannot tolerate this type of 

misconduct when the public expects the highest ethical conduct from the people who preserve 

and protect our environment. 

Noteworthy Achievements 

Our review discovered that the Agency took disciplinary action in all employee misconduct 

cases when warranted. In discussions with several action officials, employee misconduct cases 

are assigned a high priority by the Agency, and EPA also wants to make sure that the 

disciplinary action it takes is appropriate in the circumstances. They often contact other regions 

2 
or EPA Headquarters to ensure that the disciplinary action proposed is consistent with other 

regions. 

Scope and Methodology 

We performed this review in accordance with the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency 

and the Executive Council on Integrity and Efficiency Quality Standards for Inspections, which 

guides the conduct of all inspection work performed by OIGs. The term “inspection” includes 

evaluations, inquiries, and similar types of reviews that do not constitute audits or criminal 

investigations. We conducted preliminary research and field work from October 23, 2006, to 

January 5, 2007. 

We reviewed the investigative files for 69 cases involving employee misconduct closed during 

the period October 1, 2002, through September 30, 2006. We reviewed all case file information, 

including the original allegation, status reports, 

correspondence between OI and EPA officials, the Table 2: Summary of Cases Reviewed Report of Investigation, and Agency responses. If 

necessary, we discussed the cases with the special 

agents who conducted the investigation. We 

discussed administrative actions and procedures 

Cases reviewed 

 Allegations unfounded 

 Cases warranting action 

69 

28 

41 

with EPA action officials. Source: OIG case file database 

We had found disciplinary action was warranted in 

41 cases and the allegations to be unfounded in 28 

cases (see Table 2). For 26 of the 41 cases, we 

issued reports to the Agency. We did not issue a 

report in 15 cases because the employees resigned 

from EPA before prosecution, or the cases 

concerned OIG employees (see Table 3). Source: OIG analysis of case files 

Results of Review 

Table 3: Cases Requiring Action 

Breakdown of Cases 

 Warranting EPA action 26 

 Resigned before prosecution 11 

Involved OIG employee 4 

Total cases 41 

EPA Actions Not Timely 

EPA took an average of almost 200 days to notify the OIG of the decisions made or 

administrative action taken on the 26 cases of employee misconduct warranting action, 

approximately 6 months more than the 30 days required. The actual time ranged from 26 days to 

1,046 days. Delays in taking action on employee integrity and misconduct undermine the 

confidence and trust of the Federal Government. EPA Manual 6500 states that EPA action 

officials are to adjudicate or initiate appropriate administrative action within 30 days of the date 

of the report, and to notify the OIG of the proposed action. If there is no action taken within 

30 days, the action official must provide a status report to the OIG. Action officials must also 

notify OI of the final disposition of the full and complete administrative action taken. Our 

review found that the case files did not contain any correspondence or memos from the Agency 

that it would not take any administrative action within the required timeframe. 

3 
According to the action officials we contacted, the primary reason the Agency did not take 

administrative action within 30 days is that EPA cannot complete the process outlined in EPA’s 

Disciplinary Process Handbook (Handbook) within 30 days and still afford the employee due 

process. A detailed list of the process is in Appendix A. 

The Handbook is a reference for supervisors and managers to help them determine whether to 

impose disciplinary action in each particular case. The Handbook identifies seven steps to help 

Agency officials through the disciplinary process, starting with contacting the Human Resources 

Office. The process recommends using a 

strategic, team approach to provide Agency Table 4: EPA Employee Discipline Polices 

officials with consulting and advisory 

services, and generally includes forming an 

Advisory and Support Team to provide advice 

and guidance to action officials during the 

disciplinary review process. The process 

EPA Policy Title 

3110.6B Adverse Actions 

3110.8A Administrative Grievance System 

3120.1 Conduct and Discipline 

3120.2 Conduct and Discipline, 

Senior Executive Service 

follows established EPA policies concerning Source: EPA Disciplinary Process Handbook 

disciplinary actions, as listed in Table 4. The 

Handbook describes establishing an action plan (“Road Map”) when discipline is needed. It 

identifies specific procedures the Advisory and Support Team needs to follow to recommend 

what disciplinary action to take, and how the Agency should respond to the investigation. 

The timeframes included in the Handbook, if followed, would take a minimum of about 45 days. 

Several Agency officials told us the severity of the discipline affects the time – the more severe 

the discipline, the longer the process. Regions may seek advice from the Agency, other regions, 

or both, to make certain the disciplinary action is fair and consistent. Understandably, the 

region’s concern is taking disciplinary action that is appropriate and it can defend. 

Nonetheless, EPA Manual 6500 states that it is to adjudicate or initiate appropriate 

administrative action within 30 days of the date of the report, and to notify the OIG of the 

proposed action. When the Agency cannot take final disciplinary action within 30 days, it is 

required to provide OI with a status report within 30 days. The status report does not need to 

follow a specific format, and the action plan developed during the region’s review process could 

serve as the status report to the OIG. Our review found that the case files did not contain any 

correspondence or memos from the Agency to the OIG indicating it would not be taking any 

administrative action within the required timeframe. 

The time involved in completing the review process and determining what disciplinary action to 

take may continue to put EPA funds at risk and have a negative impact on the integrity of EPA 

programs. To help alleviate such concerns, EPA may take interim actions, such as reassignment 

or administrative leave, to minimize the risks of continued misconduct. In such instances, the 

Agency should inform the OIG of the interim actions taken to protect EPA funds and programs 

pending final disciplinary actions. There were no notifications of any interim actions taken by 

the Agency pending a final decision. 

If the Agency is considering disciplinary action on an employee who is a member of an 

employee bargaining unit or union, the employee has the right to union representation during the 

4 
process. The Agency officials we contacted said that union involvement may dramatically affect 

the proposed administrative action, as well as how long it takes the Agency to act. Agency 

officials told us that unions are too willing to file grievances, often defend inappropriate 

behavior, and delay the final decision when the Agency is ready to take disciplinary action. 

Agency officials also said it would be beneficial if OI followed up on cases to “remind” action 

officials that they need to take action. While the OIG is not responsible to remind or otherwise 

ensure that the Agency takes any action, one of the President’s Council on Integrity and 

Efficiency standards established for investigative organizations is to monitor administrative 

issues and assure that action officials consider and address any recommendations. While the 

Report of Investigation does not make recommendations or conclusions in investigative matters, 

both the Agency and OI can benefit from improved communications to ensure these matters are 

resolved in a timely fashion. 

EPA Actions Not Sufficient 

For 6 of the 26 cases that warranted EPA action, the disciplinary actions taken did not appear to 

sufficiently consider the severity of the misconduct. In accordance with EPA Order 3120.1, 

Conduct and Discipline Manual (Appendix C), disciplinary actions can include oral 

admonishments, written warnings, letters of reprimand, suspension, downgrade, or separation 

from Federal service. The disciplinary process focuses on several factors, including the 

“Douglas Factors.” These are relevant factors, identified by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection 

Board, in determining the appropriateness of disciplinary actions (see Appendix B for a listing). 

Based on these factors, and EPA Order 3120.1, we concluded the following six disciplinary 

actions were not sufficient: 

• An employee was absent for over 400 hours without authorization and did not submit 

leave slips, yet only received an oral admonishment. The guidance on corrective 

discipline (Appendix to EPA Order 3120.1) lists the disciplinary action for the first 

offense for being absent without leave as a written reprimand to a 5-day suspension. 

Being absent without leave for over 400 hours is equivalent to over 50 days. An oral 

admonishment does not appear to meet established EPA policies or guidelines. 

• An EPA employee admitted using a Government position to obtain information and 

conduct research to write a book on emergency and terrorism preparedness. The 

employee acknowledged not being directed by anyone at EPA to conduct the research or 

write the book, and the book was not related to the employee's EPA duties. According to 

the Appendix to EPA Order 3120.1, using an employee’s official authority to gain 

information for private gain is a minimum 14-day suspension for the first offense. 

However, this employee only received a written warning. 

• An employee used a credit card stolen from another Federal agency for personal 

purchases. The employee pled guilty in a plea agreement, had to make restitution, and 

received 3 years probation from the State where the employee lived. EPA only issued a 

letter of reprimand. 

5 
• An employee received an oral reprimand for participating in a food stamp trafficking 

scheme conducted by the employee’s spouse. DOJ indicted and convicted the 

employee’s spouse, but declined prosecution on the employee. The employee stated they 

were not aware of the spouse’s activities, but the employee commonly cashed checks for 

the spouse, even though the checks were payable to the employee. According to EPA 

Order 3120.1, the minimum disciplinary action for this type of misconduct is a written 

reprimand. 

• An employee fraudulently altered pay stubs and the action official reduced the 

disciplinary action from the 60-day suspension recommended by the employee’s 

supervisor to 10 days because the employee was a “valued employee.” The action 

official based the suspension on the “deliberate misrepresentation and falsification of a 

material fact,” and “falsifying official government documents.” The disciplinary action 

for a first offense for either of these charges ranges from a written reprimand to removal. 

While we agree that the disciplinary action was within the Agency’s discretion, we 

believe that the proposed 60-day suspension would have been more commensurate with 

the offenses. 

• An employee pled guilty to bank fraud for stealing several thousand dollars in income tax 

refund checks, forging signatures, and depositing the checks into the employee’s bank 

account. The court sentenced the employee to 1 day in jail and 5 years probation. The 

employee’s supervisor recommended a 45-day suspension but the action official reduced 

it to 14 days. Reducing the disciplinary action does not seem appropriate considering the 

nature and seriousness of the offense. Of particular concern, the employee was a grant 

specialist who dealt with the public on a regular basis. 

Based on the Douglas factors and the guidelines established by the Appendix to EPA Order 

3120.1, most of the disciplinary actions in the cases cited above were not commensurate with the 

offenses. While the action officials considered the Douglas Factors in these cases, they also have 

wide latitude in determining the disciplinary action in each case. The first of the Douglas 

Factors is to consider the nature and seriousness of the offense, and its relation to the employee’s 

duties, position, and responsibilities. The action official also needs to consider whether the 

offense was intentional, technical, or inadvertent; committed maliciously or for gain; or repeated 

frequently. EPA could consider using an independent review board or other party to assess 

whether or not the action taken is in accordance with established EPA employee discipline 

policies and the Douglas Factors. 

During our review, we noted an open case that, while not part of our original review of closed 

case files, is of concern. While the case is still open, the investigation is complete and the 

Agency took action. Specifically, an employee admitted to fraudulently purchasing computer 

equipment between 1992 and 2002. This employee intentionally circumvented EPA’s 

procurement system, and never had any purchasing authority. The computers were never 

included in EPA’s inventory system, and this employee cannot currently account for any of the 

computers. The employee freely admitted some of the fraudulently purchased equipment was for 

personal use. Based on dollar thresholds and other factors, DOJ declined criminal prosecution in 

lieu of administrative action by the Agency. The disciplinary action taken by the Agency was an 

6 
official reprimand. The official reprimand did not state that the Douglas Factors were 

considered, or that the action official considered the Appendix to EPA Order 3120.1. The 

disciplinary action in this case does not address the fact that this employee admitted to using a 

Government position to obtain information to write a book on emergency and terrorism 

preparedness, as discussed above. For that offense, the employee only received a written 

warning when EPA Order 3120.1 specifies it should have been at least a 14-day suspension. 

Conclusion 

While EPA needs to act quickly and decisively when EPA employees do not adhere to the 

principles of ethical conduct, there are practical impediments that prevent it from taking action 

within 30 days. However, EPA can take interim measures to prevent the misconduct from 

reoccurring and protect EPA funds. Those interim measures should be reported to the OIG 

pending any final decision. While the Agency has certain latitude in determining disciplinary 

actions, such actions should be commensurate with the misconduct, particularly in accordance 

with EPA Order 3120.1 and the Douglas Factors. Improved communications between the 

Agency and the OIG during the disciplinary process should help to facilitate the Agency’s factfinding steps. Improved communications should also address any outstanding concerns or 

questions, provide sufficient facts upon which commensurate action can be taken, and decrease 

the overall time needed for the Agency to determine the appropriate disciplinary action to take. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the EPA Deputy Administrator: 

1. Re-evaluate the 30-day reporting requirement on Reports of Investigation to consider a 

timeframe more in line with the length of time necessary to accomplish EPA’s 

disciplinary process. 

2. In cases when the Agency is unable to meet established timeframes, provide the OIG 

with an action plan that includes any interim action taken to minimize the risks of 

continued misconduct pending final disciplinary action. To ensure the action plan and 

timelines are being met, implement a system to adequately track and monitor the progress 

of the disciplinary action process. 

3. Assure that disciplinary actions taken in employee integrity and misconduct cases are 

sufficient and appropriate. Such steps may include the use of an independent review 

board or other party to assess whether or not the action taken is in accordance with 

established EPA employee discipline policies and the Douglas Factors and are in the best 

interests of the U.S. Government. 

Agency Response and OIG Comments 

The Agency generally agreed with our recommendations, and its complete response is in 

Appendix D. However, we would like to see the Agency make more of a commitment to dealing 

with employee misconduct. 

7 
Regarding Recommendation 1, the Agency stated: “We believe it is appropriate to update EPA 

Manual 6500 to better reflect the actual time needed.” We appreciate this response, but suggest 

that the Agency establish a date when a revision of EPA Manual 6500 will be completed. 

For Recommendation 2, EPA said action officials should be “encouraged” to notify OIG of 

interim measures, and also develop a system to track and monitor disciplinary actions. We 

believe the Agency should implement a directive “requiring” action officials to notify the OIG, 

rather than to only “encourage.” EPA should advise us when the system will be completed. 

In response to Recommendation 3, the Agency stated: 

While we appreciate the information provided, we think that this is an area that 

we would like to explore further before we put any new mechanisms in place. 

For greater than 75% of the cases reviewed, your staff assessed the disciplinary 

action to be appropriate to the misconduct identified. For the remaining 6, you 

have identified a concern that the disciplinary action was too lenient and 

recommend that EPA establish an independent review board to review all 

disciplinary actions. We would like the opportunity to identify additional options 

to address this issue. Given the relatively low percentage of cases of concern a 

less time consuming and less costly solution may be appropriate... A more 

effective approach may be to explore modifying our current leadership 

development program and mentoring and coaching activities to emphasize to 

supervisors and managers the importance of holding employees accountable for 

performance and conduct issues. 

As reported, EPA took action in 26 cases, but for nearly 25 percent of the cases (6) the actions 

taken either did not meet the minimum disciplinary action recommended in the guidelines or 

were not acceptable considering the severity of the misconduct. These findings reflect that in 

nearly 25 percent of the Agency’s disciplinary actions, Agency management is not considering 

established guidelines when making decisions or is not objectively considering the totality of 

facts. While the nearly 25 percent does not represent the majority of the cases reviewed, we still 

consider it a substantial percentage and is an area of concern. We do not believe that further 

exploration is necessary. EPA needs to adhere to established minimum guidelines for 

disciplinary actions. Establishing a review board is one suggestion we are making to ensure EPA 

management meets standards, and we believe EPA should still consider establishing such a 

board. 

8 
Status of Recommendations and 

Potential Monetary Benefits 

POTENTIAL MONETARY 

RECOMMENDATIONS BENEFITS (in $000s) 

Rec. 

No. 

Page 

No. Subject Status1 Action Official 

Planned 

Completion 

Date 

Claimed 

Amount 

Agreed To 

Amount 

1 

2 

3 

7 

7 

7 

Re-evaluate the 30-day reporting requirement on 

Reports of Investigation to consider a timeframe 

more in line with the length of time necessary to 

accomplish EPA’s disciplinary process. 

In cases when the Agency is unable to meet 

established timeframes, provide the OIG with an 

action plan that includes any interim action taken to 

minimize the risks of continued misconduct 

pending final disciplinary action. To ensure the 

action plan and timelines are being met, implement 

a system to adequately track and monitor the 

progress of the disciplinary action process. 

Assure that disciplinary actions taken in employee 

integrity and misconduct cases are sufficient and 

appropriate. Such steps may include the use of an 

independent review board or other party to assess 

whether or not the action taken is in accordance 

with established EPA employee discipline policies 

and the Douglas Factors and are in the best 

interests of the U.S. Government. 

O 

O 

O 

Deputy Administrator 

Deputy Administrator 

Deputy Administrator 

1 O = recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending 

C = recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed 

U = recommendation is undecided with resolution efforts in progress 

9 
Appendix A 

EPA’s Disciplinary Process 

Source: EPA’s Disciplinary Process Handbook 

10 
Appendix B 

The Douglas Factors 

The Merit Systems Protection Board decision, Douglas vs. Veterans Administration, 5 MSPR 

280, established criteria that supervisors must consider in determining an appropriate penalty to 

impose for an act of employee misconduct. These factors must be considered in determining the 

severity of the discipline: 

(1) The nature and seriousness of the offense, and its relation to the employee’s duties, 

position, and responsibilities, including whether the offense was intentional or technical 

or inadvertent, or was committed maliciously or for gain, or was frequently repeated; 

(2) the employee’s job level and type of employment, including supervisory or fiduciary role, 

contacts with the public, and prominence of the position;

 (3) the employee’s past disciplinary record; 

(4) the employee’s past work record, including length of service, performance on the job, 

ability to get along with fellow workers, and dependability; 

(5) the effect of the offense upon the employee’s ability to perform at a satisfactory level and 

its effect upon supervisors’ confidence in the employee’s work ability to perform 

assigned duties; 

(6) consistency of the penalty with those imposed upon other employees for the same or 

similar offenses; 

(7) consistency of the penalty with any applicable agency table of penalties; 

(8) the notoriety of the offense or its impact upon the reputation of the agency; 

(9) the clarity with which the employee was on notice of any rules that were violated in 

committing the offense, or had been warned about the conduct in question; 

(10) the potential for the employee’s rehabilitation; 

(11) mitigating circumstances surrounding the offense such as unusual job tensions, 

personality problems, mental impairment, harassment, or bad faith, malice or provocation 

on the part of others involved in the matter; and 

(12) the adequacy and effectiveness of alternative sanctions to deter such conduct in the future 

by the employee or others. 

11 
Appendix C 

Table of Offenses and Penalties 

The following excerpts from the Appendix to EPA Order 3120.1, Conduct and Discipline, 

identify certain offenses and suggested penalties. This table is a guide for supervisors to 

facilitate comparable action throughout the Agency in comparable cases. While penalties for 

offenses will usually fall within the ranges indicated, in unusual circumstances, greater or lesser 

penalties may be applied unless otherwise provided by law. The list of offenses in this table is 

not meant to be all inclusive. For offenses not listed, penalties may be imposed which are 

consistent with penalties listed in the table for offenses of comparable gravity. 

Nature of Offense 1st Offense 2nd Offense 3rd Offense 

1. Attendance related offenses. 

a. Unexcused tardiness. 

This includes delay in reporting at the scheduled 

starting time, returning from lunch and returning 

after leaving work station on official business. 

4th offense may warrant 5-day suspension to 

removal. 

Oral 

admonishment 

Oral 

admonishment to 

1-day suspension 

Oral 

admonishment to 

5-day suspension 

b. Absence without leave (AWOL). 

These penalties generally do not apply to AWOL 

charged for tardiness of 1.2 hour or less. (see 1a 

above.) This offense includes leaving the work 

station without permission. 

Penalty depends on length and frequency of 

absences. If absence exceeds 5 consecutive work 

days, employee may be removed at any time. 

Written reprimand 

to 5-day 

suspension 

1-day to 14-day 

suspension 

5-day suspension 

to removal 

c. Failure to follow established leave procedures. 

Written reprimand 

to 5-day 

suspension 

1-day to 5-day 

suspension 

5-day suspension 

to removal 

7. Conduct which is generally criminal, 

infamous, dishonest, immoral or notoriously 

disgraceful. 

Written reprimand 

to removal 

30-day suspension 

to removal removal 

8. Abusive or offensive language, gestures, or 

other conduct. (Also see "Discourtesy," 9 below.) 

Written reprimand 

to 10-day 

suspension 

5-day suspension 

to removal 

30-day suspension 

to removal 

9. Discourtesy to the public. 

Oral 

admonishment to 

5-day suspension 

Written reprimand 

to 10-day 

suspension 

10-day suspension 

to removal 

10. Stealing, actual or attempted; unauthorized possession of Government property or property of others. 

a. Where substantial value is not involved. 

Written reprimand 

to 30-day 

suspension 

14-day suspension 

to removal removal 

b. Where substantial value is involved. Written reprimand 

to removal removal 

12 
Nature of Offense 

11. Using Government property or Government 

employees in duty status for other than official 

purposes. 

Penalty depends on the value of the property or 

amount of employees’ time involved, the nature of 

the position held by the offending employee, and 

other factors. 

(For misuse of Government vehicles, see 43 below.) 

12. Use of official authority or information for 

private gain. 

13. Failure to obtain required clearance of an 

official speech or article. 

14. Engaging in private business activities which 

result in or create the appearance of a conflict of 

interest. 

15. Misuse of official Government credential. 

16. Deliberate misrepresentation, falsification, 

concealment, or withholding of a material fact, 

or refusal to testify or cooperate in an official 

proceeding. 

17. Loss or damage to Government property, 

records, or information. (Also see 44.) 

Penalty depends on value of property or extent of 

damage, and degree of fault attributable to the 

employee. 

27. Forging or falsifying official Government 

records or documents. 

30. Conducting personal affairs while in duty 

status. 

31. Falsifying time and attendance records for 

oneself or another employee. 

1st Offense 

Written reprimand 

to removal 

14-day suspension 

to removal 

Written reprimand 

to 5-day 

suspension 

Written reprimand 

to removal 

Written reprimand 

to removal 

Written reprimand 

to removal 

Oral 

admonishment to 

removal 

Written reprimand 

to removal 

Written reprimand 

to 1-day 

suspension. 

Written reprimand 

to removal 

2nd Offense 

5-day suspension 

to removal 

removal 

5-day to 14-day 

suspension 

20-day suspension 

to removal 

5-day suspension 

to removal 

5-day suspension 

to removal 

Written reprimand 

to removal 

removal 

2-day to 10 day 

suspension. 

10-day suspension 

to removal 

3rd Offense 

14-day suspension 

to removal 

14-day suspension 

to removal 

removal 

1-day suspension 

to removal 

14-day suspension 

to removal 

5-day suspension 

to removal 

30-day suspension 

to removal 

removal 

13 
Appendix D 

Agency Response 

April 6, 2007 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Comments on OIG Draft Report on EPA Employee Actions 

TO: Larry Valett, Director, Financial Fraud Directorate, 

Office of Inspector General 

FROM: Marcus C. Peacock 

Thank you for the opportunity to review this preliminary report and to provide comments which 

we believe will add to the accuracy and utility of the recommendations. As you accurately note 

in the report, "employee misconduct cases are assigned a high priority by the Agency" and "EPA 

has taken disciplinary actions in all employee misconduct cases when warranted". 

You have provided two recommendations specific to EPA's timeliness in taking disciplinary 

actions and one recommendation related to the nature and appropriateness of the disciplinary 

action itself. My comments are as follows: 

1. Re-Evaluate the 30 day reporting requirement: 

We agree that EPA officials responsible for implementing disciplinary or corrective action 

(action officials) are generally not able to take those actions within 30 days of the date they 

receive an Office of Inspector General (OIG) Report of Investigation (ROI). The drafting, 

review, and adjudication of disciplinary actions involves multiple Agency officials (HR, 

OGC/ORC, etc.), and may take longer than 30 days. We believe it is appropriate to update EPA 

Manual 6500 to better reflect the actual time needed. 

2. Interim Measures: 

We agree that in situations involving allegations of serious misconduct, action officials should 

consider taking interim measures (e.g., temporary reassignment of duties) pending a final 

disposition on the allegations. While interim measures may be routinely considered by action 

officials, action officials should be encouraged to notify OIG of such interim measures. EPA will 

develop a system to track and monitor disciplinary actions. 

3. Appropriateness of Disciplinary Action Chosen: 

While we appreciate the information provided, we think that this is an area that we would like to 

explore further before we put any new mechanisms in place. For greater than 75% of the cases 

reviewed, your staff assessed the disciplinary action to be appropriate to the misconduct 

14 
identified. For the remaining 6, you have identified a concern that the disciplinary action was too 

lenient and recommend that EPA establish an independent review board to review all 

disciplinary actions. We would like the opportunity to identify additional options to address this 

issue. Given the relatively low percentage of cases of concern a less time consuming and less 

costly solution may be appropriate. 

A more effective approach may be to explore modifying our current leadership development 

program and mentoring and coaching activities to emphasize to supervisors and managers the 

importance of holding employees accountable for performance and conduct issues. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and suggestions at this early stage. I 

hope you find them constructive and would welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues in 

further detail. 

15 
Appendix E 

Distribution 

Office of the Administrator 

Deputy Administrator 

Agency Followup Official (the CFO) 

Agency Followup Coordinator 

General Counsel 

Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations 

Associate Administrator for Public Affairs 

Acting Inspector General 

16