U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division

Review of the United 

States Marshals Service 

Disciplinary Process 

 Report Number I-2001-11

 September 2001 
EXECUTIVE DIGEST 

The Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG), 

Evaluation and Inspections Division, evaluated the discipline process in the United 

States Marshals Service (USMS) to determine whether discipline actions taken in 

response to substantiated misconduct allegations were consistent, timely, and in 

accordance with USMS policy. 

The USMS discipline process consists of two phases--the investigation of 

misconduct allegations and the adjudication of substantiated allegations. Depending on 

the severity of an allegation, the OIG, the USMS Office of Internal Affairs (OIA), or a

USMS district or division office conducts the investigation into the misconduct. If the 

allegation is substantiated, the investigation report is forwarded through the OIA to the 

USMS Human Resources Division (HRD) Employee Relations Team (ERT) for 

adjudication. The adjudication phase involves a review of the case by designated 

USMS management officials to determine the discipline action, which can range from an 

oral admonishment to removal. 

From a universe of 560 misconduct cases adjudicated between FY 1998 and FY

2000, we selected 50 cases to review for consistency and timeliness. We found 25 

cases where the consistency of the discipline or the degree of discipline imposed raised 

serious concerns, and the reasons for the final discipline decisions were not adequately 

documented. In 8 of the 50 cases, we also found no documented evidence in the 

employees’ official personnel folders that discipline actions had been enforced. 

In 14 of the 50 cases, we found significant periods of unexplained elapsed time 

that appeared to prolong case adjudication. The overall adjudication timeline for these 

14 cases ranged from 89 days to 330 days, with unexplained elapsed time periods 

ranging from 61 days to 217 days. Because of incomplete or inaccurate information in 

case files and the automated database, ERT personnel could not reconstruct case 

events to account for these time periods. 

Timeliness of case processing was also a problem in the Alternative Dispute 

Resolution (ADR) Program. We found that 66 percent of the misconduct cases in the 

ADR Program had exceeded the Program’s established time limit of 60 days. The 

backlog of cases may be attributed in part to the types of cases accepted by the ADR 

Program and limited use of USMS employees trained as ADR facilitators. In addition, 

the ADR Program did not effectively use its automated database to track the status of 

cases. 

U.S. Department of Justice i

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 
 

U.S. Department of Justice ii

Office of the Inspector General 

We also found a need for improved coordination between the various USMS 

entities involved in the discipline process. During our interviews, officials from these 

entities expressed concern or uncertainty about specific discipline process 

responsibilities, procedures, timelines, and work quality. Some of the general concerns 

mentioned by these officials involved the need for (1) cross-training to better understand 

the information requirements of the various entities to process misconduct cases, (2) 

improving or centralizing oversight of the entire discipline process, (3) clearly defining 

responsibilities concerning discipline process duties, (4) improving the timeliness in the 

discipline process, (5) improving the exchange of information among the entities, and 

(6) improving the OIA’s response for follow-up investigative requests. 

We found that the HRD and the ERT had not fully developed and implemented 

performance standards for the adjudication of misconduct cases. The USMS 

Performance Management Program identifies performance measures related to the 

OIA’s investigative phase of the discipline process. However, goals and measures for 

the ERT’s adjudication phase of the discipline process are not included. As a result, 

identifying and evaluating strengths and weaknesses in the adjudication phase of the 

discipline process cannot be accomplished. 

Finally, the USMS is not reporting all allegations of misconduct to the OIG as 

required by OIG policy. Prior to forwarding an allegation to the OIG, the OIA performs a 

“preliminary investigation” of the allegation. If the OIA determines that the alleged 

misconduct did not violate USMS policy or that enough information is not provided to 

warrant opening a formal investigation, the OIA considers the allegation “closed.” In this 

instance, the allegation is not forwarded to the OIG for review. The OIA’s FY 1998, FY 

1999, and FY 2000 annual statistics show that 70, 93, and 76 misconduct allegations 

were classified as preliminary investigations and closed. These 239 misconduct 

allegations were not reported to the OIG. The allegations included firearms violations, 

discrimination complaints, fraud, and hostile work environment misconduct that require 

immediate or 48-hour reporting by the USMS to the OIG according to OIG policy. In 

addition, allegations for 16 of the 50 cases we reviewed were opened by the USMS as 

full investigations but were not reported to the OIG. 

We made 12 recommendations to help the USMS improve its discipline process: 

• improve adherence to federal documentation standards for misconduct cases 

(Recommendation 1); 

• ensure that formal discipline actions are enforced and properly documented in 

the official personnel folders (Recommendation 2);

• require the ADR Program to meet program time limits, improve the use of 

available USMS facilitators; accept only cases appropriate for ADR, and 

improve case tracking (Recommendations 4, 5, 6, and 7); 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 
 

U.S. Department of Justice iii

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

• require development and implementation of data collection, entry, and review 

standards for ERT’s automated database (Recommendation 8); 

• reactivate meetings with representatives from the appropriate entities to 

improve coordination within the discipline process (Recommendation 9); 

• establish performance standards, including timelines, to improve the 

adjudication and oversight of misconduct cases (Recommendations 3 and 

10); 

• report all misconduct allegations to the OIA and then to the OIG 

(Recommendations 11 and 12). 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................1

Scope and Methodology..........................................................................2

RESULTS OF THE REVIEW ..................................................................5 

Discipline Decisions not Adequately Documented ..................................6

Recommendations.................................................................................15

Timely Adjudication not Always Accomplished......................................15

Recommendation ..................................................................................18

ADR Program Does not Effectively Manage Caseload .........................18

Recommendations.................................................................................21

Inconsistent Data Entry Affects Reliability .............................................22

Recommendation ..................................................................................22

Effective Coordination Efforts are Needed ............................................22

Recommendation ..................................................................................23

Performance Standards are Needed.....................................................23

Recommendation ..................................................................................24

Allegations are not Reported to the OIG as Required ...........................24

Recommendations.................................................................................28

APPENDIX 1 Policies and Procedures .............................................29 

APPENDIX 2 Roles and Responsibilities ..........................................33

APPENDIX 3 Case File Characteristics and Offenses......................38

APPENDIX 4 USMS Response.........................................................40 

APPENDIX 5 OIG Response.............................................................41 

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 1

INTRODUCTION 

After an allegation of misconduct is brought to the attention of management, 

USMS policy dictates that it be reported to the Office of Internal Affairs (OIA).1

 After 

receipt, the OIA is required to forward these allegations to the OIG for review. 

Depending on the severity of the allegation, the OIG makes a determination whether to 

investigate the allegation or refer it back to the OIA for appropriate action. Appendix 1 

summarizes the policies and procedures governing the USMS discipline process. 

The USMS discipline process is separated into two distinct phases: investigation 

and adjudication. The OIA, under the Executive Services Division (ESD), controls the 

investigation phase of the process. The Employee Relations Team (ERT), under the 

Human Resources Division (HRD), controls the adjudication phase of the process. 

In the investigation phase, if the OIG does not perform the investigation, the OIG 

refers the allegation back to the OIA for appropriate handling. The OIA reviews the 

alleged misconduct and closes the case if it determines that no investigation is required. 

If the OIA determines that an investigation is required, the OIA either conducts the 

investigation or refers the case back to the district or division where the employee (the 

subject of the allegation) works for investigation. The OIA has established a 

performance standard of 100 days to complete an investigation.2

 If the allegation is 

substantiated by the investigation, the OIA forwards the completed investigative case 

file to the ERT to begin the adjudication phase of the discipline process. 

After the ERT receives the investigative case file from the OIA, the ERT reviews 

the file and distributes the misconduct case for adjudication according to the USMS 

Discipline Delegation Policy (see Appendix 1). The ERT sends the cases it determines 

may warrant more than 14 days suspension as a potential discipline action to the USMS 

Discipline Panel to review and propose discipline actions. The ERT coordinates 

discipline proposals and decisions exceeding 14 days suspension with the USMS Office 

of General Counsel (OGC). The ERT sends the cases it determines may warrant less 

 1

 Examples of misconduct allegations are the unauthorized use of a government-owned vehicle, 

improper discharge of a weapon, failure to follow USMS policy, or associating with an individual involved 

in criminal activities. 

2

 In FY 2000, the OIA reported to the USMS Director that its total of 150 misconduct 

investigations conducted were completed in an average of 42 days. 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 2

 

than 14 days suspension as a potential discipline action to the appropriate officials in 

the district or division where the employee works to propose and decide discipline 

actions.3

The ERT is required to review and approve all discipline proposals and decisions 

for consistency and compliance with applicable USMS policies prior to issuance. The 

ERT is responsible for maintaining the official misconduct case files and related 

documentation in accordance with federal guidelines, which require copies of all 

proposal and final decisions, employees responses, and other supporting materials to 

be maintained. In addition, the ERT enters specific misconduct case file information in 

its automated database.4

 Throughout the adjudication phase, the ERT is available to 

provide advice and assistance to proposing and deciding officials or subjects of the 

allegation. (See Appendix 2 for details on the roles and responsibilities of the entities in 

the discipline process.) 

 

Scope and Methodology

We reviewed the discipline process in the USMS to evaluate whether discipline 

actions taken in response to substantiated misconduct allegations were consistent, 

timely, and in accordance with USMS policy. Our review focused on the adjudication 

phase of the discipline process. We performed our fieldwork for the review from 

January 2001 through May 2001. We examined DOJ and USMS policies, procedures, 

and any other internal documents that pertained to the discipline process (see Appendix 

1). We reviewed the official misconduct case files and the information in the automated 

database maintained by the ERT. 

We interviewed the following officials and obtained data about the discipline 

process: 

• the Acting Assistant Director of the ESD, who is responsible for oversight of 

the OIA, 

• the Chief, Human Resources Service, within the HRD, who is responsible for 

oversight of the ERT, 

3

 Not every misconduct case goes through each stage of the formal adjudication phase. For 

example, a letter of closure can be issued at different stages of case adjudication if a reviewing official 

determines the allegation to be unsubstantiated. Eleven of the 50 case files in our sample resulted in the 

issuance of such letters. 

 

4

 The PeopleSoft Human Resources Management System is a commercial-off-the-shelf 

client/server software system designed to automate and streamline the existing USMS human resources 

processes. The ERT uses this system to track discipline cases within the USMS. According to ERT staff, 

PeopleSoft became fully operational around May 1999. 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 3

 

• officials in the OGC, 

• the Chief, OIA, and select staff responsible for conducting and processing 

misconduct investigations, 

• the Team Leader and staff in the ERT responsible for controlling the 

adjudication of misconduct cases, 

• three members of the Discipline Panel who served as proposing officials from 

1998 to 2000, 

• five Chief Deputy United States Marshals who currently serve as proposing 

officials in their respective districts, 

• the Ombuds and staff for the USMS’s Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) 

Program, and 

• officials in the OIG Investigations Division responsible for the review of USMS 

misconduct allegations. 

We selected a sample of 50 case files using information in the ERT’s automated 

database.5

 These 50 cases were substantiated misconduct allegations that had been 

forwarded to the ERT for adjudication processing. This case file review focused solely 

on the adjudication phase of the discipline process. We selected the sample cases 

based on the following criteria: 

• any disparity between the proposal and decision action codes as displayed in 

the automated database, 

• misconduct offense categories with higher frequencies of occurrence (see 

Table 1 on page 7), 

• misconduct offense categories (though fewer in number) that represented 

more serious types of misconduct (see Table 1 on page 7), 

• case adjudication occurred during FY 1998 through FY 2000. 

5

 Two of the case files selected involved the same employee who was disciplined on separate 

occasions for the same offense. 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 4

Our sample of 50 case files comprised 17 cases out of 214 cases adjudicated in 

FY 1998, 20 cases out of 214 cases adjudicated in FY 1999, and 13 cases out of 132 

cases adjudicated in FY 2000. Our sample represents a broad range of misconduct 

offense categories. (See Appendix 3.) 

We reviewed the misconduct case files to determine whether documentation 

complied with the minimum standards established in the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) and whether the documented reasons explained the discipline actions 

recommended by proposing and deciding officials. We recorded case characteristics, 

milestones, and time periods. We also reviewed the official personnel folders to 

determine whether documentation was posted that showed the USMS had enforced the 

discipline decisions. 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 5

RESULTS OF THE REVIEW 

Our review of 50 USMS misconduct case files revealed 25 cases where the 

consistency of the discipline or the degree of discipline imposed raised serious

concerns. Because the USMS did not always follow federal documentation standards 

for the misconduct case files, the reasoning used in making penalty decisions was not 

fully documented or explained. We also found misconduct cases with unexplainable 

time periods that prolonged the adjudication of cases, and the USMS does not have 

policy guidance that addresses timeframes for each stage of the adjudication phase of 

the discipline process. 

In addition to our findings on the consistency and timeliness of case adjudication, 

we also identified the following issues that negatively affect the discipline process: 

 

• Discipline actions are not always documented in the employees’ official 

personnel folders. 

• The ADR Program is not effectively managing its caseload. 

• Data collection, entry, and review standards have not been established for the 

ERT’s automated database for cases. 

• USMS entities in the discipline process are not effectively coordinating their 

efforts.

• Performance standards have not been fully established and implemented for 

adjudicating misconduct cases. 

• Misconduct allegations are not always reported to the OIA or the OIG as 

required. 

Over the past several years, the USMS has periodically reviewed its discipline 

process to identify areas that needed improvement. As a result of these reviews, the 

USMS implemented the following changes: 

• a revised Discipline Delegation Policy (USMS Policy Notice 94-002A) that 

established the Discipline Panel and increased the discipline authority of 

districts and divisions for certain misconduct offenses was implemented in 

January 1995; 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 6

 

• the DOJ Table of Offenses and Penalties was incorporated into the 1996 

International Council of United States Marshals Service Locals Collective 

Bargaining Master Agreement; 

• the ADR program, an informal alternative to the formal adjudication phase of 

the discipline process, became operational in October 1998; and 

• an automated database capable of creating a uniform recordkeeping system 

to serve as an audit trail of discipline actions and decisions became 

operational in May 1999. 

Although these changes represented efforts to enhance the integrity and 

efficiency of the USMS discipline process, our review shows additional oversight of the 

implementation of these program changes is needed. 

Discipline Decisions are not Adequately Documented 

Table 1, on the following page, demonstrates the varied range of penalty 

decisions for our sample of 50 misconduct cases. The table shows that in 36 of the 50 

discipline cases (72 percent) either a formal or an informal penalty was imposed:6

 

• In 27 of the 36 discipline cases (75 percent), formal penalty decisions were 

issued to the employee ranging from a minimum of a Letter of Reprimand to a 

maximum of a demotion in grade, and 

• In 9 of the 36 discipline cases (25 percent), informal penalty decisions 

involving a verbal or oral reprimand were issued.

For the remaining 14 of the 50 cases: 

• Eleven (11) cases were adjudicated with the issuance of a Letter of Closure 

after the ERT or the deciding official determined that the misconduct 

allegation(s) was not substantiated, and

• Three (3) cases did not complete the adjudication phase because the 

employees retired in lieu of a penalty decision (including two proposed 

removals).

6

 Discipline actions may be informal or formal. Informal discipline actions, such as oral 

admonishments and verbal warnings, are not made a matter of record in the employees’ official personnel 

folders. Formal discipline actions, such as suspensions, reductions in grade or pay, and removals, are 

required to be documented in the official personnel folders. 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 7

Table 1: Penalty Range of USMS Discipline Actions 

Offense Category

Removal Demotion More Than 14Days14 Days orLess L

etter of

Reprimand Letter of Caution/ InstructionVerbal Reprimand L

etter of

Closure - Not Substantiated Other Total

1. Unauthorized or 

Improper Use of a GOV 1

a 4 2 1 1 9

2. Unauthorized Use of 

Govt. Travel Charge Card 1 3 2 6

3. Violations of Standards 

of Conduct 1 1 1 2 5

4. Disorderly Conduct 1 1 2 1 5 

5. Discharge of a Weapon 

With No Apparent Threat 1 1 1 1 1

b 5 

6. Failure to Report 1 2 3 

7. Failure to Honor Just 

Debts (Government Credit 

Card) 

1 1 2

8. Improper Restraint of a 

Prisoner 

1 1 2

9. Improper Seating of a 

Prisoner 

2 2

10. Disrespectful Conduct 2 2 

11. Failure to Follow USMS 

Policy 

1 1

12. Misuse of Office 1 1 

13. Conversion of 

Government Funds to 

Personal Use 

1 1

14. Assault on a Prisoner 1 1 

15. Falsification, 

Misstatement of

Employment 

1 1

16. Discrimination 1

a 1

17. Disgraceful Conduct 1 1 

18. Association with 

Individual Known to be 

Involved in Criminal Activity

1 1

19. Failure to Disclose all 

Assets on Annual 

Executive Financial 

Disclosure Form

1 1

Total 2 1 8 9 9 7 2 11 1 50 

Source: USMS 

a

 These employees elected to retire in lieu of proceeding with the proposed removal action. The USMS closed the disciplinary

 cases following the retirement actions. 

b Although the charge was substantiated, the employee elected to retire before the USMS proposed a discipline penalty action. 

 The USMS Table of Offenses suggests a penalty range of Letter of Reprimand to Removal for this offense.

Note: Fifteen of the fifty misconduct cases comprised more than one offense category. In five instances, separate misconduct 

cases were combined and resulted in one adjudication action for the employee. 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 8

 

While most cases resulted in a formal or an informal penalty, we found that the 

USMS case file documentation did not always support final penalty decisions. 

According to 5 CFR, section 752.406, “the agency shall maintain copies of the items 

specified in Title 5 United States Code (U.S.C.), section 7513(e) and shall furnish them 

upon request as required by that subsection.” Title 5 describes these items as “Copies 

of the notice of proposed action, the answer of the employee when written, and a 

summary thereof when made orally, the notice of decision and reasons therefore, and 

any order effecting an action covered by this subchapter, together with any supporting 

material, shall be maintained by the agency....” 

In our sample of 50 misconduct case files, we found cases that did not meet the 

minimum CFR documentation standards. The documentation in 25 cases was 

incomplete and did not explain the reasons used for penalty decisions in the following 

instances:7

• the penalty decisions were mitigated below the proposed penalty 

(19 cases); 

• in cases where multiple offenses and supporting evidence were documented 

in proposal letters, the deciding official determined that some offenses were 

not sustained, but did not document the reasons used in supporting the 

decision (6 cases); 

 

• in cases where multiple offenses were sustained, the final penalty imposed 

was lower than what would be required if each offense had been adjudicated 

separately (6 cases); and 

• the final penalty decision fell below the range of penalties suggested in the 

USMS Table of Offenses (13 cases). 

During our review of the 50 case files, we found the proposal letters were present 

and adequately documented the reasoning used in proposing any discipline action. 

However, we rarely found any documents detailing the employee’s response in the case 

files. In the absence of complete documentation, the reasoning applied in making final 

case decisions was not always apparent. Therefore, the differing levels of discipline 

imposed for similar offenses appeared as inconsistent or too lenient. 

The following synopses detail case actions and penalty decisions imposed by the 

USMS that involve the two most prevalent offense categories found in our sample--the 

Unauthorized Use of a Government Owned Vehicle (GOV) and the Misuse of a 

Government-Issued Travel Card. These case synopses demonstrate the complexity of 

misconduct cases and the challenges associated with case adjudication. Most notably, 

7

 Twelve of the 25 cases had more than one instance of inadequate documentation. 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 9

 

these cases raise serious consistency concerns as a result of inadequate 

documentation of the decision reasoning. 

 

Misconduct Cases Involving Unauthorized Use or Misuse of a GOV 

Government officials are allowed limited flexibility in proposing and deciding 

discipline action relating to the misuse of government-owned vehicles. Title 31 U.S.C., 

section 1349(b), provides in part that: 

An officer or employee who willfully uses or authorizes the 

use of a passenger motor vehicle . . . owned or leased by the 

United States Government . . . shall be suspended without 

pay by the head of the agency. The officer or employee shall 

be suspended for at least one month, and when 

circumstances warrant, for a longer period or summarily 

removed from office. 

The USMS Policy Directive 99-11, “Use of Official Government Vehicles,” 

February 12, 1999, allows for a broader interpretation of the statutory penalty range by 

allowing penalties ranging from a Letter of Reprimand to a removal for offenses 

determined not to rise to the level of the statutory “willful” misuse standard. 

As shown in Table 1 on page 7, our sample included a total of nine cases that 

involved the Unauthorized or Improper Use of Government-Owned Vehicles (GOV). In 

five of these cases (described below), the case files did not document the reasoning 

used to support the penalty decisions imposed.8

 

1. A charge of Unauthorized Use of a GOV was combined with a charge of 

Conduct Unbecoming (involving public intoxication). The Discipline Panel 

proposed a 45-day suspension. The deciding official, after review, mitigated 

the proposal to a 14-day suspension. The reasoning provided in the decision 

letter appeared to contradict facts of the misconduct as detailed in the 

proposal letter. For instance, the deciding official concluded that the 

employee had violated the USMS policy. However, this conclusion did not 

state the reason the violation did not meet the “willful” [Title 31 U.S.C., section 

1349(b)] misuse of the GOV criteria as clearly described in the proposal letter. 

The deciding official also concluded that the employee was not intoxicated 

when operating the GOV, but the official did not provide reasoning for 

differing with the facts previously detailed in the proposal letter. For instance, 

the proposal letter identified statements of the local police department 

indicating that the employee was intoxicated, did operate the vehicle, had 

behaved in a disrespectful and unprofessional manner, and that an arrest was 

8

 The OIA conducted the investigation for all five cases. 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 10

imminent for public intoxication. The local police department ultimately 

exercised its discretion by not arresting the employee following an apology 

and statements of remorse.

2. A charge of Unauthorized Use of a GOV was combined with a charge of Use 

of Offensive Language. The Discipline Panel proposed a penalty of 31 days. 

The proposed penalty was mitigated to a 1-day suspension following a 

settlement agreement reached between the employee and the USMS. The 

settlement agreement only addressed the Use of Offensive Language charge. 

The case file lacked documentation as to why the Unauthorized Use of a 

GOV offense identified in the proposal letter was disregarded.

3. Two misconduct cases were combined into a single adjudication action. A 

charge of Unauthorized Use of a GOV was combined with the additional 

charges of (1) Unauthorized Use of a Government-Rented Vehicle, (2) Failure 

to Provide Accurate Information to a Management Official, 

(3) Unauthorized Use of the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), and 

(4) Attempting to Interfere with an Official Investigation. The Discipline Panel 

sustained all the charges and proposed the employee be removed from the 

USMS. The deciding official only sustained the charges of Unauthorized Use 

of a GOV and Unauthorized Use of the NCIC. The decision letter stated that 

the other three charges were not sustained by a preponderance of the 

evidence. As a result, the proposed removal was mitigated to a 30-day 

suspension -- the mandated penalty for “willful” Unauthorized Use of a GOV. 

However, the decision letter did not address any discipline for the second 

sustained offense of Unauthorized Use of the NCIC.

4. A charge of Unauthorized Use of a GOV was mitigated from a 30-day 

suspension proposed by the Discipline Panel to a Letter of Reprimand. The 

decision letter stated that in the opinion of the deciding official, it was unclear 

whether the employee received permission from a supervisor to use the GOV 

for personal use. This opinion contradicted the evidence and documented 

statements of the employee and the employee’s supervisors presented in the 

proposal letter that supported “willful” Unauthorized Use of a GOV. The 

deciding official did not document the reasoning used and the reason for 

mitigating the penalty from the statutory 30-day suspension to a Letter of 

Reprimand. The decision letter did not explain why the evidence was 

unclear. The employee response was not in the case file. Therefore, we 

could not accurately determine how the process ended with a drastic 

mitigation of the proposed penalty.

5. A charge of Unauthorized Use of a GOV was combined with a charge of 

Failure to Report a Motor Vehicle Accident in a GOV. The Discipline Panel 

proposed a suspension of 30 days. The deciding official sustained both 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 11

 

charges and imposed a penalty of 30 days, a suspension equal to the 

mandated penalty for “willful” Unauthorized Use of a GOV. However, the 

decision letter did not address any discipline for the second sustained offense 

of Failure to Report a Motor Vehicle Accident in a GOV.

In cases 1 and 4, the decision letter or the official case files did not document the 

reasoning used concerning a significant mitigation of a proposed penalty. In cases 2, 3, 

and 5, the decision letter or the official case file did not document the reasoning behind 

the apparent disregard of a substantiated offense. 

Misconduct Cases Involving the Improper Use of a Government-Issued Travel 

Credit Card 

USMS policy states that the government-issued travel charge card is for official 

travel only and that cash advances can only be obtained when an employee is 

authorized for official travel. 

As shown in Table 1 on page 7, our sample included a total of eight cases 

related to the Unauthorized Use of an Official Government-Issued Travel Card or the 

related Failure to Honor Just Debts (Travel Card). In the seven case synopses, we 

describe how the case files lacked adequate documentation of the reasoning used to 

support the final penalty decisions imposed.9

 

1. An employee was charged with Misuse of Government Property in relation to 

over $45,500 in unauthorized purchases and cash advances accumulated 

over a 15-month period using a government-issued travel card. The 

Discipline Panel proposed a 30-day suspension. This 30-day suspension 

was mitigated to a 14-day suspension through a settlement agreement. 

Although the penalty imposed was within the parameters of the Table of 

Offenses, neither the case file nor the settlement agreement contained 

documentation outlining the reasoning applied in the penalty mitigation. 

2. An employee was charged with Unauthorized Use of a Government-Issued 

Travel Card after obtaining over $5,100 in unauthorized ATM cash advances

during an 8-month period. An additional charge of Failure to Pay Just Debts 

in a Timely Manner was added to the first charge. This second charge was 

related to a previous outstanding balance of approximately $4,500 that 

existed on the account at the time of the investigation (unpaid balances 

covering 10 months). The deciding official mitigated the proposed 2-day 

suspension to a Letter of Reprimand. The decision letter documented the 

deciding official’s reasoning for mitigating the penalty as the employee’s 

sincere remorse and assurance that the debt would be paid by a specified 

9

 The OIA conducted the investigations for all seven cases. 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 12

date. However, the case file did not contain documents detailing the 

employee’s response. 

3. An employee was charged with Misuse of a Government-Issued Travel Card 

as a result of two unauthorized cash withdrawals totaling approximately $404. 

According to ERT’s automated database the proposed penalty of a 2-day 

suspension was mitigated by the deciding official to a Letter of Reprimand. 

Although the Letter of Reprimand decision is the minimum allowable penalty 

suggested in the Table of Offenses, the case file did not contain the decision 

letter that may have documented the reasons for mitigating the proposed 

discipline. 

4. An employee was charged with Failure to Honor Just Debts in a Timely 

Manner for failure to make payments for a $1,468 travel debt accrued on a 

government-issued travel card, though the employee had been reimbursed 

for the travel expenses. A Letter of Reprimand was proposed and imposed 

by the deciding official. We found a notation in the ERT’s automated 

database that stated, “District reluctant to take more severe discipline action 

against employee, regardless of his admission that he lied to his superiors.” 

In addition, charges identified in the OIA investigative report confirming that 

the employee lied during the investigation were not acted upon. Also, the 

proposal letter characterized this misconduct case as a first offense. 

However, previous offenses involving the Failure to Honor Just Debts in a 

Timely Manner and Improper Use of a Government-Issued Credit Card had 

been sustained a few months prior, and the employee had received a Letter 

of Caution for those offenses. 

5. An employee was charged with Misuse of a Government-Issued Travel Card 

and Failure to Report an Accident in a Timely Manner. The employee had 

failed to pay the credit card company over $2,200 in travel expenses already 

reimbursed to the employee. The employee also misused the credit card to 

accumulate over $3,100 in unauthorized personal purchases. In addition, the 

employee failed to file a timely government motor vehicle accident report 

related to a vehicle accident that resulted in a claim for over $17,000. The 

deciding official mitigated the penalty for all these offenses from a proposed 

1-day suspension to a Letter of Caution. As part of the reason for mitigating 

the penalty the deciding official cited the employee’s response to the proposal 

letter. However, the case file did not contain any documents detailing the 

employee’s response. 

6. An employee was charged with Absence Without Leave (AWOL), Misuse of a 

Government-Issued Travel Card for 13 unauthorized cash advances totaling 

approximately $1,000 during the AWOL period, and Loss of a GovernmentIssued Weapon. The Discipline Panel initially proposed removal. The Panel 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 13

 

reduced the proposed penalty to a 14-day suspension following the OGC’s 

review of the case. The OGC recommended against the removal based on 

the employee’s past discipline history within the reckoning period,10 a strict 

interpretation of the reckoning period for repeat offenses, the likelihood the 

case would not withstand an MSPB appeal, and the incomplete investigation 

of several case issues. The OGC recommended that the Panel consider 

either a mitigation of the proposed penalty to remove the employee or return 

the case to the OIA for an investigation of the unaddressed issues. The 

Discipline Panel elected to propose a 14-day suspension. The 14-day 

suspension was imposed through a settlement agreement. 

7. Five months later, the same employee (case 6) was charged with 

Unauthorized Use of a Government-Issued Travel Card involving three 

unauthorized cash withdrawals for a total of $820. The Discipline Panel again 

proposed removal. This second proposed removal was mitigated to a 60-day 

suspension (with 30 days held in abeyance) as a result of another settlement 

agreement. An additional unauthorized cash withdrawal of $600, which 

occurred after the employee was interviewed by OIA for the $820 in 

withdrawals, was not included in this case. In addition to these two separate 

cases, the automated database maintained by the ERT lists a number of 

disciplinary actions for this employee dating back to 1990. The case file does

not provide the reasons for the penalty mitigation decision, in particular, the 

reason against the proposed removal given the considerable discipline record 

of the employee. 

In sum, for the misconduct cases involving Unauthorized Use of a GovernmentIssued Travel Card, the USMS imposed a wide range of penalties, such as a Letter of 

Caution (informal discipline), a Letter of Reprimand, and a 14-day suspension (formal 

discipline). After reviewing the case files we conclude that: 

• Cases 1 and 2 were adjudicated during the same time frame and involved 

similar offenses, but each case received different levels of proposal and 

decision penalties. Case 1 involved a proposed 30-day suspension, which 

was mitigated to 14 days following a settlement agreement. Case 2 involved 

only a proposed 2-day suspension, which was mitigated to a Letter of 

Reprimand by the deciding official. Both case files lacked documentation of 

the reasoning for the penalty mitigations. 

• Cases 3 and 5 also demonstrate similar concerns of inadequate reasoning to 

support the mitigation of penalties at the decision stage. 

10 The reckoning period is used to determine whether an offense is a first, second, or third 

offense. The reckoning period begins on the date management becomes aware of a first offense and 

continues for the number of days contained in the reckoning period (e.g., 365 days or one year). 

Recurrences of similar offenses within the reckoning period will result in increasingly severe penalties. 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 14

 

• Cases 4, 6, and 7 raise concerns with the thoroughness of the investigation 

process or the complete and accurate identification of misconduct offenses. 

• The discipline imposed in Cases 2, 4, 5, and 7 appears too lenient, given the 

levels of offense and the lack of justification. 

Official Personnel Folders Do Not Always Reflect Whether Discipline Has Been 

Enforced 

We reviewed the official personnel folders of employees for the cases where 

formal discipline decisions had been imposed to determine whether the USMS enforced 

the penalty decisions. Formal discipline actions, such as a suspension, a reduction-ingrade, or a removal, affect an employee’s pay, position, or continued employment. 

They must be documented on a Standard Form 50 (SF-50), Notification of Personnel 

Action, and filed in the employee’s official personnel folder.11 

As shown in Table 1 on page 7, 27 of the 50 misconduct cases in our sample 

involved formal discipline decisions. However, we found that 8 of the 27 employees’ 

official personnel folders (30 percent) did not contain an SF-50 documenting that a 

specific discipline action had been enforced.12 We contacted District management to 

obtain either documentation or verbal verification that the discipline had been enforced 

in these eight cases. We only were able to obtain verbal verification from District 

management for four of the eight cases. 

11 The SF-50 serves as the permanent record of personnel actions in an employee’s official 

personnel folder. Informal discipline (e.g., oral admonishment, letter of caution) documentation is not 

required to be in the official personnel folders. 

12 All eight of these cases involved a 1-day suspension or more. 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 15

Recommendations 

1. The USMS Director should instruct the HRD to improve adherence to the federal 

standards for documenting misconduct case actions and consider implementing 

additional case documentation standards as needed. 

2. The USMS Director should instruct the HRD to ensure that all formal discipline 

actions are enforced and properly documented in the official personnel folders. 

The Timely Adjudication of Misconduct Cases is not Always

Accomplished 

During the adjudication phase, a misconduct case is under the control of the 

ERT, the proposing official(s), or the deciding official. The progression of a case can be 

affected by factors such as employees’ requests for extensions or officials asking for 

additional information. A case’s progression can also be affected by influences external 

to the discipline process, such as when an employee requests ADR mediation, registers 

an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint, or files a grievance. Other factors 

that can affect timely adjudication involve the severity of the allegation (proposed 

discipline over 14 days) and the subsequent OGC review. If the proposed discipline 

calls for a removal from the USMS, the Workforce Relations Group (WRG) in the DOJ’s 

Justice Management Division (JMD) is also required to review the case (see Appendix 

2). 

Yet, based on the data in the case files and the ERT’s automated database, we 

found 14 of the 50 misconduct cases (28 percent) in our sample had significant periods 

of unexplained elapsed time that prolonged the adjudication. The ERT staff could not 

account for the extended timelines in the 14 cases using the documentation in the case 

files, the information recorded in the automated database, or personal memory. 

 

Table 2 on the following page shows the time range for the adjudication of the 50 

misconduct cases after ERT’s receipt of the investigation report from the OIA: 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 16

Table 2: Timeliness of Misconduct Case Adjudication 

Elapsed Days From ERT’s Receipt of 

Completed Investigation Report to 

Signed Decision Letter (50 Cases) 

Number of 

Cases (%)

30 days or less 7 (14%) 

31 days to 90 days 16 (32%) 

91 days to 180 days 13 (26%) 

181 days to 270 days 7 (14%) 

271 days to 360 days 5 (10%) 

361 days to 436 days 2 (4%) 

Total 50 (100%)

Source: ERT official case files and automated database. 

The overall adjudication timeline for the 50 cases varied from 1 to 436 days, while the 

average adjudication time for the 50 cases was 140 days. 

The following synopses describe 4 of the 14 cases with the longest periods of 

unexplained elapsed time: 

• Case 1 took 330 days from the time the ERT received the case to the time a 

decision letter was signed. It took 177 days from the time ERT received the 

case to the time a proposal letter (Letter of Reprimand) was completed and 

issued to the employee. It took another 153 days before a decision letter was 

issued. 

• Case 2 took 322 days from the time the ERT received the case to the time a 

decision letter was signed. It took 169 days from the time ERT received the 

case to the time a proposal letter (removal) was issued. It took another 153 

days before a decision letter was issued. This was due, in part, to the 

employee being granted a 49-day extension to respond to the proposal letter. 

The OGC was involved in the proposal stage. We could not ascertain what, if 

any, delay could be attributed to the OGC’s involvement. The ERT had 

requested the OIA perform additional investigative work, but there was no 

documentation in the case file supporting whether the work had been done. 

• Case 3 took 309 days from the time the ERT received the case to the time a 

decision letter was signed. It took 217 days from the time ERT received the 

case to the time a proposal letter (45-day suspension) was issued. It 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 17

took another 92 days before a decision letter was issued. This was due, in 

part, to the employee being granted a 47-day extension to respond to the 

proposal letter. 

• Case 4 took 236 days from the time the ERT received the case to the time a 

settlement agreement was signed. It took 109 days from the time ERT 

received the case to the time a proposal letter (30-day suspension) was 

issued. It took another 127 days for a settlement agreement to be signed. 

Based on the data collected, it took 194 days from the time the OIA 

completed its investigation to the time ERT records show the case being 

received. When these unexplained 194 days are combined with the 236 days 

for adjudication, 430 days elapsed before the case was settled. 

Table 3 displays the other ten cases with lengthy, unexplained time periods: 

Table 3: Unexplained Adjudication Time Periods 

Misconduct Offense 

Number of

Days from

ERT Receiving 

Case to the 

Proposing 

Official(s) 

Number of

Days to Issue 

Proposal 

Letter 

Number of

Days to 

Issue 

Decision 

Letter 

Total Days

in 

Adjudication

Phase 

1. Unauthorized Use of a 

GOV a 39 57 154 250

2. Misuse of Office a 61 48 107 216

3. Unauthorized Use of a 

GOV a b 4 180 79 263

4. Failure to Honor Just 

Debts (Travel Card) a 7 122 104 233

5. Disorderly Conduct 70 31 76 177

6. Violations of Standards of 

Conduct 27 145 113 285

7. Disgraceful Conduct a 19 84 156 259

8. Discharge of a Weapon 

With No Apparent Threat a 61 47 57 165

9. Violations of Standards of 

Conduct 1 74 14 89

10. Association w/ Individual 

Known to be Involved in 

Criminal Activity 

3 37 169 209

Source: USMS misconduct case files a

 Case involved additional offenses. 

b

 Multiple cases combined into one adjudication. 

Note: The emboldened numbers indicate the considerable unexplained time period for each case.

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 18

 

The DOJ has stressed the importance of processing discipline cases timely. A 

DOJ report entitled, “Justice Performance Review, Adverse Actions in the Department 

of Justice,” November 6, 1995, stated: 

It is a long-held management principle that an adverse 

action is most likely to have the desired effect when it is 

carried out as close to the event as possible. Delaying 

action in misconduct and performance cases not only 

permits the inappropriate activity to continue for an extended 

period of time, but can also result in other employees 

forming an impression that the activities in question are not 

viewed as serious or inappropriate by agency supervisors. 

Also, DOJ Human Resources Order 1200.1 states, “...there is no limitation with 

respect to when discipline must be effected after the commission of misconduct. 

However, managers are encouraged to act in a timely manner.” 

The ERT needs to ensure that misconduct cases are adjudicated in a timely 

manner. The ERT should establish and implement timelines for the various stages 

involved in the adjudication of a case and monitor a case’s progress against those 

timelines.13 Currently, the ERT does not consistently exercise adequate management 

oversight of all misconduct cases. This results in some misconduct cases exceeding 

reasonable adjudication time periods. 

Recommendation 

3. The USMS Director should instruct the HRD to establish timelines for the 

adjudication of misconduct cases and to use the timelines to monitor the status of each 

case through the process. 

The ADR Program Does not Manage its Caseload for the Timely

Processing of Misconduct Cases 

The ADR Program is a non-traditional, non-adversarial, informal process that 

uses a trained facilitator as a neutral third party to resolve workplace conflicts between 

two or more parties. The USMS ADR Program is under the oversight of the HRD but is 

separate from the ERT, which administers the adjudication phase of the formal

discipline process. Day-to-day management and cost accountability for the ADR 

Program is the responsibility of the ADR Ombuds. 

13 During our fieldwork the ERT was unaware of any timelines for adjudicating misconduct cases. 

However, prior to issuance of this report, the HRD did provide the OIG with a document describing partial 

timeline standards for adjudicating cases. 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 19

 

The USMS’s ADR Handbook (June 1999) states that 60 calendar days are 

allowed for resolution of a dispute once an employee has initiated a request for ADR. 

An additional 30 days is allowed if the employee and agency official(s) both agree to the 

extension. 

According to the ADR Ombuds, approximately 150 cases have been submitted to 

ADR since the program’s inception; 41 of these were identified as misconduct cases. 

The ADR Ombuds stated that 60 days is a reasonable goal for mediating ADR disputes. 

Based on data provided by the ADR Ombuds, however, 27 (66 percent) of these 41 

misconduct cases have exceeded the 60-day time period. 14 

The ADR Ombuds provided data describing the status of the 41 misconduct 

cases. Our analysis showed the following: 

• Nineteen cases were open and awaiting action. For these 19 cases, the time 

periods in the ADR Program ranged from 14 days to 487 days; the average 

time was 234 days. Sixteen of these open cases had exceeded the 60 days 

allowed. 

• Fifteen cases had reached agreements and were closed.15 For these 15 

cases, the time periods for closure ranged from 4 days to 342 days, and the 

average time in the ADR Program was 96 days. Eight of these cases 

exceeded the 60 days allowed. 

• Five cases failed to reach an agreement and were returned to the ERT for 

adjudication through the formal discipline process. Three of these five cases 

had been in ADR for 39 days, 141 days, and 292 days, respectively. The 

data was incomplete and did not provide the length of time the other two 

cases had been in ADR. 

14 Our review of the ADR data showed that 23 of these 27 cases had also exceeded the 90-day

limit. The data did not show any requests for, or granting of, 30-day extensions in these 23 cases. The 

OIG team did not review individual ADR case files. 

15 Discipline penalties, such as those established in the Table of Offenses, do not have to be 

applied in the ADR Program. However, we compared the ADR outcomes versus the discipline penalties

proposed during formal case adjudication. For 6 of the 15 closed cases, the ADR agreement matched 

the formally proposed discipline action. For 5 of the 15 closed cases, the ADR agreement was slightly 

less than the proposed discipline action (such as proposed letters of reprimand mitigated to letters of 

caution). For 2 of the 15 closed cases, the ADR agreement was considerably less than the proposed 

discipline action. A 30-day suspension was reduced to 3 days and a 45-day suspension was reduced to 

12 days. For the 2 remaining closed cases, the ADR Program did not provide data on the outcome of the 

ADR agreements. 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 20

 

• Two cases were withdrawn. The data was incomplete and did not provide the 

reason for the withdrawals or the length of time these two cases had been in 

ADR. 

 

As noted above, after 60 days (90 days if a 30-day extension had been granted) 

in the ADR Program, misconduct cases should resume adjudication through the formal 

discipline process. However, the ADR Ombuds does not monitor or return misconduct 

cases that have exceeded these time periods to the ERT. The ERT does not monitor 

the status of misconduct cases sent to the ADR Program or request the return when the 

60-day deadline has expired. Consequently, cases have languished in ADR. 

The ADR Ombuds cited inadequate staffing for the ADR Program that includes 

both misconduct and performance cases. The ADR Ombuds estimated that 50 percent 

of his time is directed to the ADR Program duties and the other 50 percent is directed to 

Labor Relations Program duties. During our review, a full-time assistant was appointed 

to the ADR Program. In addition to the assistant, the ADR Ombuds has approximately 

20 trained USMS personnel located in various USMS districts to assist as facilitators in 

mediating disputes.16 However, the Ombuds has not used the majority of these 

facilitators to assist in the mediation of misconduct cases. The Ombuds stated that, 

despite the training, he believes most of the USMS facilitators are not sufficiently 

knowledgeable about personnel management laws and regulations to effectively resolve 

personnel issues. Consequently, when seeking mediation assistance, the Ombuds 

relies predominantly on contract personnel to serve as facilitators.17 Despite the 

availability of these additional USMS and contract facilitators, the ADR Program’s 60-

day time limit is not being met. 

During interviews with officials in the USMS OGC, they expressed concerns 

about the timeliness of the ADR Program and the types of cases accepted into the ADR 

Program. The OGC believed that misconduct cases that are appealable to the MSPB 

should not be accepted into the ADR Program before the decision letter is issued. The 

ADR Handbook states, “ADR is generally not an option in discipline actions appealable 

to the MSPB.” Despite that policy, the ADR Ombuds told us that the MSPB was 

incorporating ADR into its own process. Therefore, the Ombuds believed ADR at the 

USMS-level for these appealable cases was also appropriate and had accepted cases 

prior to a decision letter being issued. 

16 USMS personnel were trained and certified as facilitators by undergoing a 3-day course 

conducted by the Justice Center of Atlanta, a non-profit organization. 

17 Contract personnel serving as facilitators are employees of the Federal Personnel 

Management Institute and cost the USMS $85.00 an hour for labor and materials, which is paid by the 

ADR Program. The ADR Program could not provide data on how many times contract facilitators were 

used or the total cost to the USMS. 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 21

According to 5 CFR 1201.22(b)(1), the MSPB acknowledges ADR as a method 

of resolving disputes prior to filing a formal appeal. The MSPB allows a time extension 

for filing an appeal “Where an appellant and an agency mutually agree in writing to 

attempt to resolve their dispute through an alternative dispute resolution process....” 

While ADR may be an acceptable and less costly method of reaching agreeable 

solutions in misconduct cases, we believe that the USMS, not the ADR Ombuds alone, 

should decide what types of cases are eligible for ADR and at what stage the cases are 

appropriate for ADR. 

We did not assess the ADR Program’s database as part of our review. However, 

we have concerns about the reliability of the data. These concerns are attributed to the 

inconsistent quality of the data we received and the length of time taken by the ADR 

Ombuds to compile the data. For example, the ADR Ombuds could provide us with 

only a verbal estimate of the total ADR caseload, and we had to request several 

versions of the ADR misconduct case data because of incompleteness or inaccuracies. 

Entering consistent, accurate, and complete data in a timely manner is essential to 

improving the case monitoring capabilities and the administration of the ADR Program. 

Recommendations 

4. The USMS Director should instruct the HRD to meet established ADR timelines and 

return cases that do not meet these time lines to the appropriate office to continue with 

formal processing. 

5. The USMS Director should instruct the HRD to develop and implement a strategy for 

increasing the use of trained USMS ADR facilitators. 

6. The USMS Director should ensure the HRD is accepting only eligible cases for ADR 

and at the appropriate stage. 

7. The USMS Director should instruct the HRD to ensure that consistent, accurate, and 

complete data is entered in a timely manner in the ADR database to allow for more 

effective monitoring, oversight, and reporting. 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 22

Inconsistent Data Entry Procedures Results in Unreliable Case 

Information 

The ERT does not have written standards addressing the primary source, the 

completeness, and the accuracy of the information about misconduct cases entered in 

its automated database. At the time of our review, ERT staff could individually

determine and enter what they considered to be relevant data for each case. The 

automated database does not contain edit checks identifying required fields or 

incomplete or inaccurate information. The ERT does not periodically review the 

database to identify and correct deficiencies to ensure the integrity of the information. 

As a result, we found numerous instances of either incomplete (blank data fields) or 

inaccurate (wrong dates) data entered in the ERT’s automated database. Complete 

and accurate case management information is a critical element for monitoring the 

progress of each case, for analyzing case trends, and for assessing needed changes in 

the adjudication phase overall. 

 

Recommendation 

8. The USMS Director should instruct the HRD to develop and implement data 

collection, entry, and review standards for ERT’s automated database. 

Discipline Process Entities are not Effectively Coordinating Efforts 

The USMS entities involved in the discipline process--the OIA, the ERT, the 

OGC, the ADR Program, the EEO Office, and the Discipline Panel--must work closely to 

ensure that misconduct allegations are investigated and adjudicated in a manner that is 

consistent, timely, and responsive to the needs of USMS. During our interviews, 

officials from these entities expressed concern or uncertainty about specific discipline 

process responsibilities, procedures, timelines, and work quality. Some of the general 

concerns mentioned by these officials involved the need for: 

• cross-training to better understand the information requirements of the 

various entities to process misconduct cases, 

• improving or centralizing oversight of the entire discipline process, 

• clearly defining responsibilities concerning discipline process duties, 

• improving the timeliness in the discipline process, 

• improving the exchange of information among the entities, and 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 23

 

• improving the OIA’s response for follow-up investigative requests.18

Officials told us that they had met periodically to discuss discipline process 

issues. However, these meetings were discontinued about a year ago because of a 

turnover in USMS leadership. We found no documentation describing the frequency or 

what was discussed or accomplished at the meetings. Based on our interviews and 

observations, we believe the USMS must improve coordination among the entities 

involved in the discipline process. Our review shows the necessity for corrective actions 

for some of the issues listed above. The USMS needs to renew its previous efforts to 

identify and address issues that affect the discipline process. 

Recommendation 

9. The USMS Director should direct the HRD to reactivate these meetings with 

representatives from the appropriate entities involved in the discipline process to identify 

and solve discipline process issues. These meetings should occur periodically and a 

written record of activities and decisions should be maintained. 

Performance Standards Have not Been Established for Adjudicating 

Misconduct Cases 

The USMS has not established performance goals and measures for the 

adjudication phase of the discipline process. The Government Performance and 

Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) requires agencies to set multiyear strategic goals and 

corresponding annual goals to measure the performance toward the achievement of 

those goals and to report on their progress. Although the GPRA addresses the major 

functions and operations of agencies, the concept of measuring outcomes to improve 

effectiveness applies to all programs and processes. Setting goals and measuring 

performance helps to establish priorities, control operations, communicate 

accomplishments, and motivate staff. 

The Department’s Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2000-2005 outlines specific 

program goals, objectives, and strategies. One strategic goal is to “ensure excellence, 

accountability, and integrity in the management and conduct of Department of Justice 

programs.” A strategic objective supporting this goal addresses human resources. 

18 Because requests to OIA for additional investigative work are usually accomplished

telephonically and rarely documented, the frequency of this issue could not be determined. 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 24

 

The USMS published three multi-year planning documents in response to the 

GPRA and the Department’s Strategic Plan.19 Each plan addresses human resources. 

The USMS Performance Management Program (PMP) identifies performance 

measures related to the OIA’s investigative phase of the discipline process. However, 

goals and measures for the ERT’s adjudication phase of the discipline process are not 

included. In the absence of performance goals and measures in the broader USMS 

planning documents, the HRD and ERT have not fully developed and implemented 

internal performance goals, standards, and measures for guiding the work efforts of 

ERT personnel and for identifying strengths and weaknesses in the adjudication of 

misconduct cases overall.20 As a result, progress toward achieving basic desirable 

goals and objectives of the discipline program goes unmeasured. 

Recommendation 

10. The USMS Director should instruct the HRD to develop performance standards for 

the adjudication of misconduct cases and monitor cases against those standards. 

The OIA Does not Report all Misconduct Allegations to the OIG 

According to OIG policy memorandum, “Guidelines for Reporting Allegations of 

Misconduct to the OIG,” July 1, 1998, and USMS Policy Directive 99-33, “Misconduct 

Investigations,” August 2, 1999, misconduct allegations received by the OIA will be 

forwarded to the OIG.21 We found that the OIA is not fully complying with these policies. 

Prior to forwarding an allegation to the OIG, the OIA performs a “preliminary 

investigation” of the allegation. If the OIA determines that the alleged misconduct did 

not violate USMS policy or that enough information is not provided to warrant opening a 

formal investigation, then the OIA considers the allegation “closed.” In this instance, the 

allegation is not forwarded to the OIG for review. 

The OIA’s FY 1998, FY 1999, and FY 2000 annual statistics show that 70, 93, 

and 76 misconduct allegations were classified as preliminary investigations and closed. 

These 239 misconduct allegations were not reported to the OIG as required. 

• For FY 1998, the 70 misconduct allegations represented 28 percent of the 

total 248 misconduct allegations received by OIA. 

19 The planning documents are the USMS Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Management Program 

(PMP), July 1999; the USMS Tactical Plan FY 2000-2002, July 1999; and the Marshal’s Service 2000: 

The Strategic Plan of the USMS, 1997 and Beyond, February 1997. 

20 Partial timelines for the adjudication of cases has been developed but not yet implemented. 

21 This OIG policy memorandum was also directed to the Immigration and Naturalization Service 

and the Bureau of Prisons.

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 25

• For FY 1999, the 93 misconduct allegations represented 36 percent of the 

total 258 misconduct allegations received by OIA. 

• For FY 2000, the 76 misconduct allegations represented 30 percent of the 

total 254 misconduct allegations received by OIA. 

Table 4 below and Table 5 on the following page show the types and numbers of 

misconduct allegations that were preliminarily closed by the OIA and not reported to the 

OIG in FY 1998 and FY 2000. These statistics were not available for FY 1999. 

Table 4: Allegations Closed by OIA After Preliminary Investigations 

 and not Forwarded to the OIG—FY 1998 

Allegation Number

Lost/Stolen Government Property 1 

Firearms/Weapons Violations 1 

Discrimination Complaints 2 

Fiscal Improprieties 14 

Prisoner Violations 7 

Investigative Violations 2 

Personnel Prohibitions 14 

Off Duty Misconduct 4 

On Duty Misconduct 14 

Use/Misuse of Government-Owned Vehicles 4 

Other Violations 7 

Total 70

Source: USMS Office of Internal Affairs 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 26

Table 5: Allegations Closed by OIA After Preliminary Investigations 

 and not Forwarded to the OIG—FY 2000 

Allegation Number

Conduct Unbecoming 39 

Fraud or Theft 16 

Hostile Work Environment 1 

Misuse of a Government-Owned Vehicle 5 

Misuse of Position 1 

Missing or Mishandled Prisoner Property 7 

Unfair Personnel Practices 7 

Total 76

Source: USMS Office of Internal Affairs 

The allegations include firearms violations, discrimination complaints, fraud, and hostile 

work environment misconduct that require immediate or 48-hour reporting to the OIG by 

the USMS according to OIG policy. See Appendix 1 for OIG classification levels for 

reporting allegations. 

One case in particular illustrates the importance of OIA reporting all misconduct 

allegations to the OIG rather than discretionarily closing allegations through preliminary 

investigations. This case was active and involved various allegations of unprofessional 

misconduct concerning two USMS employees. These two employees were found to 

have created a fictitious, sexually explicit letter that identified two other USMS 

employees as the subjects of the letter. The letter was crafted to appear as an official 

USMS document. Although the allegation was reported immediately to the OIA, the OIA 

reviewed, closed, and referred the allegation back to the originating office for 

“appropriate managerial action.” As a result, the immediate supervisor issued an oral 

admonishment to one of the two employees involved. This allegation was not reported 

by the OIA to the OIG, as required. 

Approximately five months later, the OIA reopened the case and forwarded the 

allegation to the OIG upon receiving requests to reopen the investigation from the HRD 

and a division official charged with oversight of the office where the incident occurred. 

The OIA conducted interviews with nine employees who had seen or heard of the letter. 

This case remains open after approximately 22 months from the occurrence and initial 

reporting of the incident. The Discipline Panel has reviewed the case and proposed 

suspensions for 5 and 7 days, respectively, for the two employees. As of June 19, 

2001, one case was in ADR and one case was in the decision stage of the adjudication 

phase of the discipline process. 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 27

 

We also found that allegations for 16 of the 50 misconduct cases (32 percent) we 

selected for our sample were not reported to the OIG. In 9 of these 16 cases, the OIA 

never reported the allegations to the OIG. The OIA had formally investigated and 

substantiated these 9 allegations and sent the reports of investigation to the ERT for 

adjudication. The OIA was unable to provide any documentation or reasoning as to why 

the 9 cases had not been reported to the OIG. Some of these cases involved 

allegations of unauthorized use of a government-owned vehicle, unauthorized discharge 

of a weapon, disrespectful conduct, and failure to properly transport prisoners. 

The remaining allegations for 7 of the 16 cases had not been reported to the OIA 

by the originating district office. Four of the seven allegations not reported occurred in 

one district. As a result, the OIA was unaware of these allegations and therefore, could 

not report them to the OIG.22 Some of these cases involved allegations of disorderly 

conduct and failure to use proper restraints. 

Separate from our case file review, we also interviewed five Chief Deputy United 

States Marshals (CDUSM) who serve as the proposing officials for misconduct cases in 

their respective districts. Three of the five CDUSMs we interviewed said they have 

exercised discretion on whether or not to report certain types of misconduct to the OIA. 

This discretion was based on the initial source of the complaint (internal or external to 

the district) or the perceived severity of the misconduct. However, USMS Policy 99-33 

does not allow for discretion by employees, supervisors, or managers in reporting 

misconduct allegations. USMS Policy 99-33 states, “...employees are also responsible 

for immediately reporting misconduct allegations or violations of policies and procedures

to their immediate supervisor, the OIA, or the OIG . . . USMS managers/supervisors 

[are] responsible for...reporting all misconduct complaints immediately to OIA.” 

The OIG has previously expressed its concern to the USMS regarding 

compliance with the OIG reporting requirements. In an OIG memorandum sent to the 

USMS, “Policy on Reporting Misconduct,” February 23, 1999, the OIG Investigations 

Division stated, 

We are concerned that current USMS reporting of 

misconduct is not consistent with our July 1, 1998, reporting 

guidelines policy memorandum. We are particularly 

concerned with Classification I allegations which are the 

most serious offenses, requiring immediate reporting to OIG 

field offices, and often requiring contemporaneous response. 

It is our perception that there may be confusion at the District 

level regarding the requirements of reporting misconduct. 

22 One of the seven cases was eventually reported to the OIG after a judge who presided over the 

conviction of a USMS employee wrote a letter to the USMS Director expressing concern that misconduct 

incidents may be occurring without management’s knowledge. 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 28

We understand that Districts are allowed to handle certain 

“performance” issues at the local level. However, the line 

between performance and misconduct is often not clear and 

we are concerned that misconduct is being handled as 

performance without reporting to OIA or the OIG. 

Although OIG and USMS policies require that allegations of misconduct be 

reported through the OIA to the OIG, adherence to these policies has been inconsistent

within the USMS. As a result, the OIA and the OIG are not fully aware of misconduct 

allegations and cannot ensure that they are properly investigated and adjudicated. The 

OIA and the OIG also do not have complete information on misconduct within the 

USMS for analyzing trends, identifying systemic problems, and recommending solutions 

to these problems. 

Recommendations 

11. The USMS Director should instruct all USMS districts, divisions, and headquarters 

organizations to report all misconduct allegations to the OIA. 

12. The USMS Director should instruct the OIA to report all misconduct allegations to 

the OIG in accordance with OIG policy. 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 29

Appendix 1 

Policies and Procedures 

Legislation 

A federal employee who has had a misconduct allegation substantiated by an 

investigation is subject to disciplinary action. This action is imposed during the 

adjudication phase as provided in the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978; and Title 5, 

Code of Federal Regulations, Part 752, Adverse Actions; and 5 U.S.C. Chapter 75, 

Section 7501-7504, 7511-7514. 

Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

The Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, and Attorney General Order 

1931-94, dated November 8, 1994, require misconduct allegations concerning USMS 

employees and contractors to be reported first to the OIG Investigations Division for 

review and disposition. The OIG decides whether it will conduct an investigation or 

refer the misconduct allegation to the Chief, USMS OIA, for subsequent investigation by 

an OIA investigator, the originating district or division, or for discretionary closure if 

appropriate. 

The OIG Assistant Inspector General (AIG) for Investigations issued a 

memorandum to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Bureau of Prisons, and 

the USMS, dated July 1, 1998, which outlined guidelines for reporting misconduct 

allegations to the OIG. This memorandum provided a general breakdown of 

misconduct allegations into three separate classifications, with corresponding reporting 

periods to the OIG depending on the severity of the allegation. Classification 1 requires 

immediate reporting, and no investigation can be initiated prior to receipt and 

classification of the allegation by the OIG. Classification 2 requires reporting within 48 

hours. An internal investigation can be started but the OIG reserves the right to 

terminate and initiate its own investigation. Classification 3 only requires that the 

allegation be reported in a pre-determined monthly format. These three classifications 

also carry certain reporting requirements if the investigation is referred back to the 

component. 

The AIG for Investigations issued an additional memorandum, dated 

February 23, 1999, to the USMS which clarified policy requirements of reporting 

misconduct given reporting and consistency concerns. 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 30

Justice Management Division 

DOJ Human Resources Order DOJ 1200.1, “Discipline and Adverse Actions,” 

August 25, 1998, which replaced DOJ Order 1752.1A, recognized that each Bureau has 

different management requirements that must be addressed in determining the 

appropriate offense penalty. This Order granted each Bureau the authority to establish 

its own Schedule of Disciplinary Offenses and Penalties. However, the Bureaus are 

required to notify the Department’s Workforce Relations Group (WRG) within the Justice 

Management Division of any case that presents a significant legal (as opposed to 

factual) issue that may be of interest to the Department. This requirement is due in part 

to the potential of the WRG representing any Bureau (at the request of the Bureau or 

the direction of the Assistant Attorney General for Administration) or the Department on 

matters that fall within the jurisdiction of MSPB, its administrative judges, or the Office of 

Special Counsel. 

United States Marshals Service 

Discipline Delegation Policy 

The USMS Policy Notice 94-002A, “Discipline Delegation Policy,” dated January 

1995, describes who serves as the proposing and deciding officials for the following 

misconduct categories: 

Informal Discipline -- Minor corrective actions (i.e., oral admonishments, letters of 

caution) are issued at the lowest appropriate level. 

Disciplinary Actions of 14 Days or Less -- The Chief Deputy United States Marshal or 

Branch/Unit Chief serves as the proposing official for all disciplinary actions warranting 

a suspension of 14 days or less at the District or Division level. The U.S. Marshal or 

Division Chief serves as the deciding official for all disciplinary actions warranting a 

suspension of 14 days or less. 

Disciplinary Actions Greater than 14 Days -- The Discipline Panel comprises five USMS 

officials (two serve as alternates) who serve as panel members for two years. The 

Discipline Panel reviews and issues proposed discipline action in all misconduct cases 

that will result in suspensions greater than 14 days. The Discipline Panel can also 

propose less severe discipline. A senior USMS official, selected by the Director, serves 

as the deciding official for the Discipline Panel’s proposed discipline actions. 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 31

Other USMS Discipline Policies 

Related policies and directives issued by the USMS that also identify misconduct 

complaint reporting, investigation, and adjudication requirements are found in USMS 

Policy Directive 99-33, “Misconduct Investigations,” and Policy Directive 99-18, “Code of 

Professional Responsibility.” Related policy and procedures also are published in the 

USMS Policy and Procedures Manual, Volume III, 3.13, Discipline and Adverse Actions. 

However, the manual has not been updated since October 31, 1995, to fully reflect all 

related and subsequent polices. 

Pursuant to DOJ Order 1200.1, the USMS opted to retain the existing USMS 

Table of Offenses as a guide in determining appropriate discipline penalties. The 

USMS Policy and Procedures Manual states that the Table of Offenses “is intended to 

provide guidance in the application of uniform discipline” and that management should 

not apply a rigid or narrow interpretation when determining discipline action. The Table 

“is intended to provide maximum flexibility in the assignment of penalties to employees

in a variety of grades and positions and for varying degrees of culpability.” The Manual 

also states “...there is enough flexibility that offenses listed in the Table can be used in 

proposing and deciding penalties for similar offenses not found in the Table.” There are 

28 separate offense categories listed in the Table of Offenses. There are 99 separate 

offense codes used to identify various misconduct allegations. 

Merit Systems Protection Board — The Douglas Factors 

In Douglas v. Veterans Administration (1981), the MSPB identified 12 relevant 

factors agency management needs to consider and weigh in deciding an appropriate 

disciplinary penalty. The factors are: 

 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 ability to 

perform assigned duties; 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 32

 6. consistency of the penalty with those imposed upon other employees for the 

same or similar offenses; 

 7. consistency of the penalty with the applicable agency table of penalties (which

are not to be applied mechanically so that other factors are ignored); 

 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. potential for 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. 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 33

 

Appendix 2 

Roles and Responsibilities 

Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General 

In 1989, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) was created in the Department 

of Justice pursuant to the Inspector General Act Amendments of 1988. According to the 

Act and its legislative history, jurisdiction over the investigation of misconduct 

allegations against Department employees was divided between the Department’s 

Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) and the OIG. OPR was responsible for the 

investigation of misconduct allegations involving Department attorneys, criminal 

investigators, and other law enforcement personnel. Responsibility for the investigation 

of other matters was assigned to the OIG. 

In Attorney General Order No. 1638-92, dated December 11, 1992, the Attorney 

General clarified the jurisdictional division between OPR and the OIG. Under the 1992 

Attorney General Order, the jurisdiction of the OPR was revised to extend to the 

investigation of misconduct allegations against Department employees which implicated 

the Department's core functions, defined as the "prosecutive, investigative, or litigative 

functions of the Department." The responsibility of investigating matters not involving 

the core functions was assigned to the OIG. 

The OIG’s responsibility was changed by Attorney General Order 1931-94, dated 

November 8, 1994.23 Under this Order, the OIG was given the responsibility of 

reviewing and investigating any misconduct allegations committed by Department 

employees, contractors, grantees, or other individuals conducting business with or 

receiving benefits from the Department. This Order exempted from OIG review DOJ 

employees who worked for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA)--each of these components has its own internal 

OPR. 

An Attorney General Order, dated July 11, 2001, assigned primary jurisdiction 

over allegations of misconduct against employees of the DEA and the FBI to the OIG. 

23 Attorney General Order 1931-34 gave the Department’s OPR jurisdiction to investigate 

misconduct allegations by Department attorneys that relate to "the exercise of their authority to 

investigate, litigate, or provide legal advice.” In addition, OPR also was given responsibility for 

investigating misconduct allegations brought against law enforcement personnel when the allegations

relate to misconduct by attorneys within the jurisdiction of OPR. 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 34

United States Marshals Service 

The United States Marshals Service (USMS) is the nation's oldest federal law 

enforcement agency. Since 1789, federal Marshals have served the United States 

through a variety of law enforcement activities. The mission of the USMS is to protect 

the federal courts and to ensure the effective operation of the judicial system. Other 

areas of responsibility include fugitive investigations, witness security, prisoner 

transportation, and asset seizure. The Director, Deputy Director, and 94 U.S. Marshals 

appointed by the President direct the activities of 94 district offices. Approximately 

4,210 personnel serve in the USMS--2,863 employees serve in operations positions and 

another 1,347 serve in administrative positions. 

USMS Office of Internal Affairs

In the USMS, all misconduct allegations are required to be forwarded to the 

Office of Internal Affairs (OIA) and then forwarded to the OIG. After the OIG reviews the 

USMS misconduct allegations, OIA conducts the majority of investigations. The 

exceptions are allegations the OIG determines it should investigate, allegations the OIA 

refers to other law enforcement entities, or allegations the OIA refers back to the 

employee’s office of employment for investigation. 

An investigation establishes supporting evidence for whether or not an allegation 

is substantiated. If an allegation is not substantiated, the case is closed and a copy of 

the case file is maintained by the OIA. If an allegation is substantiated, a copy of the 

case file is forwarded to the ERT in the HRD for review to begin the adjudication phase 

of the discipline process. 

At the time of our review, the OIA had a staff of 10 personnel consisting of one 

Chief, six investigators, and three support staff. 

USMS Employee Relations Team 

The Employee Relations Team (ERT), under the supervision of the Assistant 

Director for the HRD, assists USMS employees in the following areas: discipline and 

performance actions, performance management, leave administration, and awards. At 

the time of our review, the ERT was authorized four staff positions but only had onboard one team leader and two employee relation specialists. The individual in the role 

of team leader was serving in an acting capacity. At the conclusion of our review, the 

position was officially filled. 

The ERT is responsible for the adjudication of misconduct cases. Upon receipt 

of an investigative case file from the OIA, the ERT team leader reviews the case and 

assigns it to an ERT staff member, who is responsible for monitoring the progress of the 

case. The ERT team leader also determines whether a case should be referred back to 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 35

the district or division or forwarded to the Discipline Panel for review. The ERT also 

ensures any proposed discipline action is in accordance with USMS Discipline 

Delegation Policy. 

The ERT is responsible for maintaining the official misconduct case files; 

monitoring the adjudication progress of each case; providing assistance in the form of 

advice, information, or expertise to employees, district, division, and Discipline Panel 

personnel; and reviewing and approving all proposal and decision letters for consistency 

and compliance. Also, according to USMS policy, the ERT can continue to adjudicate a 

case by revising the original allegation if the facts support this action or issue a letter of 

clearance or of closure in a case if the facts support this action. 

Proposing and Deciding Officials 

Once the ERT reviews and decides to adjudicate a case, it is forwarded to the 

proposing official at the appropriate level (district, division, or Discipline Panel) for 

review. Based on the information in the investigative case file, any prior misconduct 

information on the employee provided by the ERT, and any first-hand knowledge of the 

case or employee (usually at the district level), a proposed discipline action by the 

official(s) is recommended. This action is presented in the form of a proposal letter, 

prepared by ERT staff, to the employee for signature. The letter also informs the 

employee of available options and specific time periods that must be met. 

Officials determine the level of discipline actions by reference to guidelines 

established in the USMS Table of Offenses. If the proposed discipline calls for a 

suspension of over 14 days, a copy of the proposal letter and the investigative case file 

are also provided to the Office of General Counsel (OGC) for review. If the proposed 

discipline action calls for removal of the employee, then a copy of the proposal letter 

and the case file are provided to the WRG in the Department’s JMD for review. 

The deciding official reviews the case file and the proposal letter and considers 

any written or verbal response submitted by the employee to the proposed action before 

rendering a final decision. This decision is prepared and finalized in written format by 

ERT before being presented to the employee. 

USMS Office of General Counsel 

The OGC’s involvement in the discipline process occurs when a proposed 

discipline action against an employee calls for a suspension of more than 14 days. This 

level of proposed discipline action can be appealed to the MSPB. Because the OGC 

represents the USMS in these cases before the MSPB, the OGC is provided with a 

copy of the proposal letter and investigative case file for review. The OGC reviews the 

thoroughness of the investigation, the proposal notices, and the reasonableness of the 

proposed penalties and provides an opinion that the identified offenses are sustainable 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 36

 

and that the proposed discipline action is reasonable and warranted based on the 

evidence. In addition, the OGC ensures that the relevant Douglas factors are given 

consideration in the penalty determination. If a case is appealed to the MSPB, control 

of the case is relinquished to the OGC by the ERT. The OGC also becomes involved in 

the discipline process when employees choose to resolve their cases using the ADR 

Program. The OGC generally acts in a consultant role to USMS management

concerning this program. 

USMS Alternative Dispute Resolution Program 

The ADR Program began in the USMS as a pilot project in 1996 and was 

implemented as a fully operational program in October 1998. Oversight of the program 

is the responsibility of the ADR Ombuds. The ADR Ombuds can decline or discontinue 

any request or case if it is deemed to be in the best interest of the USMS. The USMS 

ADR Handbook, dated June 1999, describes the program as being non-traditional, nonadversarial, and informal in nature. By using a trained facilitator as a neutral third party, 

the program is designed to resolve workplace conflicts, including misconduct cases, 

between two or more parties to achieve an agreement that benefits all parties. 

According to USMS standards, 60 calendar days are allowed for the ADR Program to 

reach a conclusion. An additional 30 days is allowable if both parties consent. 

Management as well as employees can request ADR and can have counsel present. 

USMS Equal Employment Opportunity Office 

USMS employees may file EEO complaints. Some of the factors that would 

qualify as the basis for an EEO complaint involve race, sex, age, or religious 

discrimination. A complaint has to be registered with an EEO Counselor within 45 days 

of the date of occurrence. If a complaint cannot be remedied during the informal phase 

of the EEO process and the evidence warrants, the USMS EEO Office will conduct a 

formal investigation (to be completed within180 days). If an EEO complaint is related to 

or a result of a misconduct allegation, this can affect the overall processing of the 

misconduct case. During the informal phase of the EEO process, the employee is also 

informed of the ADR Program as an option. 

Merit Systems Protection Board 

Established by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, the MSPB is an 

independent agency in the executive branch of the federal government.24 The MSPB is 

charged with oversight of the federal government's merit-based system of employment. 

In most cases, this is accomplished by hearing and deciding appeals from federal 

employees being considered as recipients of major personnel actions, such as removal 

24 The Act replaced the Civil Service Commission with three agencies: the MSPB, the Office of 

Personnel Management, and the Federal Labor Relations Authority. 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 37

from service. Other, less serious, actions may be appealed as well. The MSPB also 

hears and decides other types of civil service cases, reviews regulations of the Office of 

Personnel Management, and conducts studies of the merit system. 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 38

Appendix 3 

Case File Characteristics and Offenses 

Table 5: Misconduct Case File Characteristics 

50 Case Sample 

Assignment Number 

District Operations 

District Administration 

Headquarters Administration 

44 

 2 

 4 

Classification 

District Operations -- Non-Supervisory 

District Operations -- Supervisory

District Administration -- Supervisory 

HQ Administration -- Supervisory

HQ Administration -- Non-Supervisory 

31 

13 

 2 

 2 

 2 

Grade 

GS-7 

GS-9 

GS-11 

GS-12 

GS-13 

GS-14 

GS-15 

 4 (8%) 

 1 (2%) 

 5 (10%) 

25(50%) 

 9 (18%) 

 1 (2%) 

 5 (10%) 

Sex 

Male 

Female 

42 

 8 

Race 

White 

Black 

Hispanic 

American Indian 

Asian 

31 

11 

 5 

 2 

 1 

 

 Source: USMS 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 39

Table 6: Misconduct Case Sample by Offense Category

Offense Category

Number of 

Misconduct 

Cases 

Unauthorized Use of a Government-Owned Vehicle 

(GOV) 8 

Unauthorized Use of Government Property (Travel 

Credit Card) 6 

Violations of Standards of Conduct 5 

Disorderly Conduct 5 

Discharge of a Weapon with no Apparent Threat 5 

Failure to Report 3 

Failure to Honor Just Debt (Travel Credit Card) 2 

Improper Restraint of a Prisoner 2 

Improper Seating of a Prisoner 2 

Disrespectful Conduct 2 

Failure to Follow USMS Policy 1 

Improper Use of a GOV 1 

Misuse of Office 1 

Conversion of Government Funds to Personal Use 1 

Assault on a Prisoner 1 

Falsification, Misstatement of Employment 1 

Discrimination 1

Disgraceful Conduct 1 

Association with an Individual Known to be Involved 

in Criminal Activity 1 

Failure to Disclose All Assets on an Annual Executive 

Financial Disclosure Form 

1 

Total 50

Source: USMS 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 
Appendix 4 

USMS’s Response to the Draft Report 

 Introduction 

The Department of Justice Office of Inspector General (DOJ-OIG) 

Evaluation and Inspections Division conducted an evaluation of the discipline 

process in the United States Marshals Service to determine whether discipline 

actions taken in response to substantiated misconduct allegations were 

consistent, timely and in accordance with USMS policy. 

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the major findings of the 

report, and agree with all of the report findings except Recommendation One. 

Under Recommendation One, while we agree in principal that such detailed 

explanations and documentation could be helpful from the perspective of the 

DOJ-OIG evaluation, we feel that when considering the overall process, from 

investigation to completion of a third-party review, this recommendation is not 

practical. 

We trust that the DOJ-OIG will take the opportunity to reconsider their 

position on this recommendation based on our response, which we feel is 

consistent with Federal sector disciplinary requirements and accepted practices 

among the Federal employee relations community. 

The following responses address each of the DOJ-OIG recommendations: 

Recommendation 1: The USMS Director should instruct the HRD to improve 

adherence to the Federal standards for documenting misconduct case actions 

and consider implementing additional case documentation standards as needed. 

Response: Recommendation Not Accepted: 

The Employee Relations Team (ERT) will continue to adhere to Federal 

standards. We agree that Federal standards require documenting misconduct 

cases. However, we do not agree that Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

documentation standards require the detailed explanations outlined in the 

evaluation report. We believe that when considering the overall process, from 

investigation to completion of any potential third-party review, this 

recommendation is not practical. The basis for this conclusion is outlined below. 

• In several of these cases that were reviewed during the DOJ-OIG 

evaluation that resulted in disciplinary actions of 14 days or less, we 

acknowledge that some of the supporting documentation was not present 

in the case files. These cases were adjudicated at the local level, and 
while local managers were directed to provide copies of oral and written 

replies, in some cases they apparently did not. ERT will remind local 

managers of their obligation to provide this documentation and will further 

instruct Employee Relations Specialists to ensure that this documentation 

is maintained in the disciplinary case file. 

• The Federal standards cited in the OIG report, 5 CFR Section 752.406, 

specifically apply to formal disciplinary actions effecting a penalty range 

greater than a 14-day suspension. In addition, these standards do not 

apply to cases that are resolved by use of settlement agreements, where 

employees waive their rights to the normal disciplinary process. In a 

review of these cases effecting a penalty greater that a 14-day 

suspension, all applicable cases complied with the requirements set forth 

in 5 CFR Section 752.406, in as much as copies of written replies and 

summaries of oral replies were present in these files. In other cases 

where no oral and/or written reply was made, this fact was documented in 

the decision letter. 

 

• When considering the entire disciplinary process, including the fact that 

discipline is subject to further review by appellate bodies, it is an accepted 

Federal personnel management practice not to “litigate” a disciplinary 

action in the decision letter. 

• The DOJ-OIG based their findings on a review of 50 selected misconduct 

cases. Since these cases were not selected at random but were chosen 

based on specific criteria, the report should make it clear that the statistics 

arrived at cannot be applied to the entire universe of cases. 

• The DOJ-OIG review appears to conclude that a disparity between 

proposal and decision warrants a concern, and that such a disparity 

demonstrates a weakness in the system. However, we believe that we 

are compelled to give appropriate weight and consideration to the due 

process rights of employees and the Douglas factors. While the focus of 

the DOJ-OIG review was the discipline process only, the application of this 

process must take into consideration the overall picture, which could 

include such issues as the quality of the evidence in the discipline file and 

the strategies that may evolve during third party litigation. The strength of 

this position is evidenced by our success in third-party proceedings. 

• Regarding consistency of penalty, in the USMS there are in excess of 200 

possible proposing and deciding officials who could be involved in the 

disciplinary process at any given time. In making consistency 

determinations, the third-party review standard requires that deciding 

officials be consistent with their own decisions. Therefore, no conclusions 

should be drawn from an across-the-board comparison of discipline 

penalties. 
Recommendation 2: The USMS Director should instruct the HRD to ensure that 

all formal discipline actions are enforced and properly documented in the official 

personnel folders. 

Response: Recommendation Accepted. We concur with this 

recommendation. On March 1, 2001, the Employee Relations Team 

implemented new procedures to ensure that all disciplinary actions were properly 

documented and enforced. At that time, the following procedures were 

established for all discipline actions greater than a letter of reprimand: 

• When the decision letter is signed, a Request for Personnel Action (SF52) identifying the suspension dates will be prepared by the ER Specialist 

managing the case. 

• A copy of the signed SF-52 (s) will go to Staffing. 

• A copy of the signed SF-52 (s) will go to the Specialist for inclusion in the 

discipline file. 

• A copy of the signed SF-52 (s) will be maintained in a binder. 

• Approximately one pay period after the effective date of the suspension, 

ERT will check the payroll system to determine if the suspension was 

recorded. 

• If the suspension was not recorded in the payroll system, the Specialist 

managing the case will be notified. 

• The Specialist will determine if a Notification of Personnel Action (SF-50) 

was prepared and follow up (with district/headquarters office) to determine 

if the suspension was served. 

• If the suspension was not served, the Specialist will obtain from 

management new dates when the suspension will be served. 

• A new SF-52 correcting the dates of the suspension will be prepared and 

the above steps will again be followed. 

• If there are unusual issues involving the suspension, the Specialist will 

notify the Team Leader for appropriate action. 

Recommendation 3: The USMS Director should instruct the HRD to establish 

time lines for the adjudication of misconduct cases and to use the time lines to 

monitor the status of the cases through the process. 

 
Response: Recommendation Accepted: 

ERT has time lines for issuance of the proposals: 90 days for Discipline Panel 

disciplinary actions and 30 days for disciplinary actions delegated to 

District/Division Managers. Employees have 10 days to submit their replies. In 

cases where employees request additional time to make their replies, the 

deciding official may extend this time line as he determines is necessary to afford 

the employee sufficient time to reply. 

Timeliness has always been and will continue to be a concern in the disciplinary 

process. 

Additional internal goals will be informally established and revised as needed to 

ensure the timely adjudication of disciplinary cases, keeping in mind that the 

cases that normally take the longest time to adjudicate are usually the most 

complex and usually involve the most severe discipline, up to and including 

removal. These internal standards and goals will be used as a management tool 

to assist in the process, but in all fairness to the employee, we do not want these 

standards to drive the process. We do not feel that it is necessary or appropriate 

to establish formal time lines. 

According to DOJ 1200.1, Part 3, Labor/Employee Relations, Timing of 

Discipline: “There is no limitation with respect to when discipline must be affected 

after the commission of misconduct. However, managers are encouraged to act 

in a timely manner.” This guidance seems to support our position that timeliness 

is important, but not necessarily the key element in taking a disciplinary action. 

There is nothing in this order that makes time lines a requirement in the 

disciplinary process. 

 We will constantly strive to improve in these areas, and make every effort to 

document any significant delays in the process in the disciplinary case file. 

In addition, on March 7, 2001, all ER Specialists were reminded to ensure that all 

correspondence that relates to the case file should be maintained in the case file, 

including, but not limited to, requests for extension, requests for information, etc. 

Each Specialist was also reminded to include any and all 

communications/documentation that would identify or explain any significant time 

delays. 

Recommendation 4: The USMS Director should instruct the HRD to meet 

established ADR time lines and return cases that do not meet these time lines to 

the appropriate office to continue with formal processing. 

Response: Recommendation Accepted. The ADR policy is being revised to 

automatically return the disciplinary action to the formal processing once the 
established time lines have expired. ADR may continue at the option of the 

parties, but, formal adjudications of discipline will occur. 

Recommendation 5: The USMS Director should instruct the HRD to develop 

and implement a strategy for increasing the use of trained USMS ADR 

facilitators. 

Response: Recommendation not accepted: Due to a revision in the ADR 

policy (recommendation # 6) there will be no need for more trained USMS 

mediators to handle these cases. Sufficient numbers of mediators are available 

for lesser discipline matters that are not as complex. 

Recommendation 6: The USMS Director should ensure the HRD is accepting 

only eligible cases for ADR and at the appropriate stage. 

Response: Recommendation accepted: The ADR policy is being revised 

such as to not provide an ADR option for pre-decisional appeal of major 

disciplinary actions, i.e., those greater than 14 days and appealable to the 

MSPB. 

Recommendation 7: The USMS Director should instruct the HRD to ensure that 

consistent, accurate, and complete data is entered in a timely manner in the ADR 

database to allow for more effective monitoring, oversight, and reporting. 

Response: Recommendation Accepted: Currently the ADR process has in 

place an excellent data and record keeping system. Due to personnel shortages, 

the data entry requirements were not being met. With the addition of another 

staff member to the ADR program, these requirements will be met on a 

continuing basis. 

Recommendation 8: The USMS Director should instruct the HRD to develop 

and implement data collection, entry, and review standards for ERT’s automated 

database. 

Response: Recommendation Accepted: The Employee Relations Team will 

establish standards for data collection, entry, and review for ERT’s automated 

database. Standards will be established NLT November 30, 2001. 

Recommendation 9: The USMS Director should direct the HRD to reactivate 

these meetings with representatives for the appropriate entities involved in the 

discipline process to identify and solve disciplinary process issues. These 

meetings should occur periodically and a written record of activities and 

decisions should be maintained. 

Response: Recommendation Accepted: On a monthly basis, representatives 

from IA, ADR, OGC and EEO will meet with the Employee Relations Team to 
identify, discuss and resolve disciplinary process issues. A written record of 

these activities and decisions will be maintained by the ER Team. The next 

meeting is scheduled to take place on October 3, 2001. 

Recommendation 10: The USMS Director should instruct the HRD to develop 

performance standards for the adjudication of misconduct cases and monitor 

cases against those standards. 

Response: Recommendation Accepted: Performance standards have 

traditionally been in place for the ER Team in that the ER Specialist was 

expected to have the proposed disciplinary action memorandum mailed to the 

district within 30 days of receipt of the investigative file. In addition, the 

traditional standard for cases being sent to the Discipline Panel was to have the 

proposed disciplinary action mailed to the Discipline Panel within 90 days of 

receipt of the investigative file. Prior to the implementation of a standardized 

Performance Plan for all USMS employees in January 1997, each ER Specialist 

had a Performance Plan that included these specific standards. 

In December 1999, this standard was again cited in the Mission and Activity 

Statement for the Employee Relations Team as follows: 

1. Prepare proposals for all disciplinary actions for issuance by the USMS 

Discipline Panel within 90 days. 

2. Prepare proposals for all disciplinary actions for issuance by 

District/Division Managers within 30 days. 

A copy of this statement has been provided to the OIG. 

Recommendation 11: The USMS Director should instruct all USMS districts, 

divisions, and headquarters organizations to report all misconduct allegations to 

the OIA.

Response: Recommendation Accepted: All USMS districts, divisions, and 

headquarters organizations will be reminded of their responsibility to report all 

misconduct allegations to the OIA. 

Recommendation 12: The USMS Director should instruct the OIA to report all 

misconduct allegations to the OIG in accordance with OIG policy. 

Response: Recommendation Accepted: OIA has always reported 

classification one and two allegations to the OIG as required by OIG guidelines. 

Some class three allegations were not reported to the OIG. These unreported 

allegations were found either to be unsubstantiated after the preliminary 

investigation or to involve misconduct by contractors. Pursuant to the OIG 

findings, OIA will forward all allegations to the OIG as required by the reporting 
guidelines. Currently, OIA is working with the OIG to electronically report class 

three allegations on a monthly basis. The changes in reporting to the OIG have 

been implemented and the OIA is in full compliance with the guidelines. 
On September 28, 2001, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued 

the final report to the Acting Director, United States Marshals Service (USMS), 

entitled “Review of United States Marshals Service Discipline Process." The 

report contained 12 recommendations that required action by the USMS. The 

USMS response, dated October 5, 2001, addressed each of the 

recommendations and is included as Appendix 4 in the report. Our analysis of 

the USMS response follows and is included as Appendix 5 in the report. 

Recommendation Number I - Resolved - Open. Although the USMS 

response did not agree with several aspects of our finding, including our 

conclusion that most of the case files did not meet the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) case documentation standards, the USMS agreed to adhere 

to the federal standards for documenting misconduct cases. The USMS 

responded that many of the case files the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) 

reviewed contained the required documentation. In addition, the USMS 

response stated that the information contained in the decision letters in the 

case files the OIG reviewed was adequate because the CFR does not require 

decision letters to include a “detailed explanation" to meet CFR standards. 

However, our report states that the CFR requires that the reasons for the 

discipline actions, not a detailed explanation, be documented. We found that 

the decision letters did not consistently provide adequate reasoning to 
understand why the deciding official mitigated proposed discipline action. The 

USMS response also concluded that our recommendation to improve adherence 

to CFR standards was impractical, when the overall disciplinary process is 

considered, but it failed to explain why improved adherence to CFR standards 

was impractical. 

 The USMS response to Recommendation Number 1 also includes 

comments on several specific aspects of the report. Our response to each of the 

comments follows. 

• In its response, the USMS acknowledged that several of the case files we 

reviewed involving discipline action of less than 14 days may not have 

contained all of the required supporting documents because the cases 

were adjudicated at the local level (District and Division). For those cases 

adjudicated at the District and Division level, the USMS stated that it will 

instruct the Employee Relations Team (ERT) to remind local managers of 

the obligation to provide this documentation and will further instruct the 

ERT to ensure that this documentation is maintained in the discipline 

case file. 

We agree that this corrective action for cases adjudicated at the District 

and Division level is important, but it will not fully address the 

documentation deficiencies we found in the other case files adjudicated 

by the Discipline Panel. Not all cases resulting in discipline action of 14 

days or less are reviewed and adjudicated at the District and Division 

level. Of the 50 cases in our review, 22 cases were initially determined to 

be serious enough to warrant being sent to the Discipline Panel by the 

ERT for review and adjudication. After review and adjudication by the 

Discipline Panel, only 11 of these cases resulted in a discipline action of 

more than 14 days. The other 11 cases resulted in a discipline action of 

14 days or less. Yet, most of these 22 case files did not contain all the 

required documentation as defined in the CFR. Therefore, we recommend 

that the USMS should instruct the ERT to ensure that all cases 

processed at all adjudication levels contain the required documentation. 

• The USMS response notes that 5 CFR Section 752.406 provides the 

federal standard for documenting misconduct cases involving more than 

14 days discipline. As provided in our report, this section states "the 

agency shall maintain copies of the items specified in Title 5 United 

States Code (U.S.C.), section 7513(e) and shall furnish them upon 

request as required by that subsection." Title 5 describes these items as 

“Copies of the notice of proposed action, the answer of the employee 

when written, and a summary thereof when made orally, the notice of 
decision and reasons therefore, and any order effecting an action covered 

by this subchapter, together with any supporting material..." Although 

not specifically mentioned in the report, Title 5, section 7503(c) requires 

the same case documentation standards for discipline actions involving 

14 days or less. 

 The USMS also comments that not all cases in our review required all of 

the documents described in the CFR standards. We agree that each case 

file we reviewed did not always require a proposal letter, an employee 

response, and a decision letter, because the case may not have gone 

through the entire formal discipline process. This was the case in 20 of 

the 50 case files we reviewed. Six cases were closed through the use of a 

settlement agreement, 3 cases were closed due to the employee deciding 

to retire before the process was completed, and 11 cases were closed with

a letter of closure issued by either the ERT or the Discipline Panel. 

During our review, we considered the extent the formal discipline process 

had been completed and the effect this had on the CFR documentation 

requirements for each case. 

In addition, the USMS stated that all the case files in our review that involved 

an imposed discipline action of more than 14 days (total of 11) complied with 

the CFR documentation requirements. While we found decision letters in case 

files that indicated an employee had responded, a copy of the written response 

or a summary of the oral response was not included in the case file as required 

by the CFR, with the exception of 2 cases adjudicated at the District level. 

Thus, in most of the 30 cases that went through the entire discipline process, 

the USMS was not consistently meeting the entire CFR documentation 

standard for its case files with respect to employee responses. 

• The USMS asserts that it is an accepted federal practice not to “litigate" a discipline 

action in the decision letter, but the USMS response does not explain what this 

means. Our report does not propose that the USMS prepare decision letters that 

itemize or discuss the merits of all evidence provided during the disciplinary 

process. The report cites the need for the USMS to improve adherence to the CFR 

standard that requires the reasons for the imposed discipline actions to be included 

in the notice of decision. In the cases that went through the entire formal discipline 

process where a deciding official mitigated the proposed discipline action, we found 

varying levels of information describing the reasons for mitigation. Our report 

provided specific examples of case files that did not contain sufficient information to 

determine the reasons for the imposed discipline actions. For example, the report 

describes certain cases that had multiple charges supported in the proposal letter, 

We found that the deciding official in these cases did not indicate that consideration 

was given to each of these charges when determining discipline action. In other 

cases, the discipline action imposed fell below the range of penalties suggested in 

the USMS Table of Offenses or the discipline action imposed appeared to be 

inconsistent to other similar discipline actions or lenient and the deciding official did 
not include the reasons for the imposed discipline. 

The USMS also did not agree with our finding that the reasons for the 

imposed discipline actions were not adequately documented in the 

decision letters. As an argument for the adequacy of the documentation, 

the USMS referred to its success with third party reviews -- an 

explanation we believe is not directed to the issue discussed in our 

report. Third party reviews, such as a review by the Merit System 

Protection Board, involve more than the case file contents to determine 

the merits of a case. As the case examples in the report show, we were 

not always able to understand the reasons used in imposing certain 

penalty decisions from the decision letter. A case file should allow for a 

reviewer to follow the entire progression of the discipline process and, if 

necessary, draw reasonable and accurate conclusions on the fairness or 

the consistency of a discipline action imposed. A case file should contain 

the necessary documentation so that the logical progression, direction, 

and reasoning used in the case, from the investigative stage to the 

decision letter, are clear and defensible. 

• The USMS indicates in its response that it is important for the report to 

clarify that the statistics in the report are not based on a random sample 

and therefore cannot be applied to the entire universe of cases within the 

USMS. Early in the report, we provided the specific criteria for selecting 

the 50 case files for our review, and it is clear from the description in the 

report that the sample was not a random sample. However, based on the 

high incidence of cases with insufficient documentation in our selected 

sample, it is reasonable to assume that similar deficiencies exist in other 

cases. 

• The USMS response comments that our report appears to conclude that 

a disparity between the proposed penalty and the final decision warrants 

concern and that such a disparity demonstrates a weakness in the 

system. Our report fully acknowledges the complexity of misconduct 

cases and the challenges associated with adjudicating them. However, 

based on our case file review, our report does raise important concerns 

over the inconsistent penalties and the disparity in the penalty decisions. 

The report shows that 19 cases were mitigated below the proposed 

penalty and in 13 cases the final penalty fell below the suggested range 

of penalties. The report also includes specific cases where similar 

offenses adjudicated during the same time frame received differing levels 

of proposed and imposed discipline, cases where prior offenses were not 

considered during the final penalty decision, or cases that failed to show 

that all offenses had been considered and addressed by the deciding 

official. Thus, the imposed discipline appeared inconsistent with similar 
cases or too lenient. The report's conclusions, however, are derived from 

our review of the case files, which did not always have the required or 

adequate level of documentation to support or explain the reasons for the 

imposed discipline actions. 

The response also again comments on "the strength" of the USMS position as 

evidenced by the USMS's success in third-party proceedings. That success rate 

does not answer the question of whether USMS penalty decisions are 

inconsistent. Moreover, success rates in third party proceedings may be based 

on numerous factors, one of which could be undue leniency in the USMS's 

proposed discipline actions. 

• The USMS asserts that our report should not draw conclusions regarding 

the consistency of penalties from a comparison of cases. The USMS 

states that there could be over 200 possible proposing and deciding 

officials, who could be involved in the disciplinary process at any given 

time, and based on the third 

party review standard it is only critical that the deciding officials are 

consistent within their own decisions. Contrary to the USMS's view that 

consistent penalty decisions are not critical or possible, the OIG believes 

that the discipline process should result in supportable and consistent 

disciplinary decisions, regardless of the number of possible proposing 

and deciding officials, and the disciplinary decisions should be made 

after the deciding officials consider all relevant factors in a case. Our 

review of the case files did not indicate that all relevant factors were 

considered because the documentation was not complete and the 

decision letters did not adequately explain the reasoning used to 

determine the imposed discipline actions. 

Consistency in penalty decisions supported by sound and documented 

reasoning is the hallmark of an effective, fair and objective disciplinary 

process. As we state in the report, the USMS has taken steps in the past 

to improve the disciplinary process and has established a Discipline 

Panel to provide consistent review and adjudication of misconduct cases, 

which may result in discipline action of over 14 days. 

The ERT is the caretaker of the USMS disciplinary process, and has the 

overall responsibility for ensuring the discipline process serves both the 

employee and the agency. According to USMS procedures, the ERT is 

responsible for maintaining the official misconduct case files; monitoring 

the adjudication progress of each case; providing assistance in the form 

of advice, information, or expertise to employees, district, division, and 

Discipline Panel personnel; and reviewing and approving all proposal and 

decision letters for consistency and compliance. The USMS response 
indicated that over 200 individuals potentially play a role in the 

disciplinary process at any given time. Because of the large number of 

individuals involved in the process, it is crucial that the ERT provide 

sufficient guidance to ensure the standards for documenting misconduct 

are consistently met and followed. 

 To close this recommendation the USMS should issue a memorandum 

that clarifies the importance and necessity of meeting CFR documentation 

standards for misconduct case files to its staff and officials involved in the 

disciplinary process. This memorandum should also identify the documents 

the USMS requires in its misconduct case files and highlight the CFR 

documentation requirements. Specifically, the memorandum should identify 

the employee response (when provided) as a required part of the case file. The 

memorandum should also address the need for a more detailed review by the 

ERT staff of each decision letter, especially when it contains mitigating factors. 

This memorandum should be distributed to all entities involved in the 

discipline process for reference purposes. We will consider this 

recommendation resolved but will keep it open until we receive a copy of this 

memorandum. 

Recommendation Number 2 - Resolved - Open. The USMS accepted 

our recommendation to ensure that all formal discipline actions are enforced 

and properly documented in official personnel folders. We consider the 

recommendation resolved but will keep it open until a copy of the procedures 

that had been implemented on March 1, 2001 is received. 

 Recommendation Number 3 - Resolved - Open. The USMS accepted 

our recommendation to establish time lines for the adjudication of misconduct 

cases and to monitor the status of the cases through the process. While the 

ERT has partial timelines in place, as stated in the response, these time lines 

were not used to measure timeliness of adjudication. Formal time lines should 

be established for each segment of the adjudication process, from the time the 

ERT accepts a case file from the OIA to when the decision letter is signed. The 

OIG realizes that each misconduct case is unique and involves certain 

complexities. These timelines would not be designed to “drive the process," but 

rather serve as a gauge to measure where each case should be at a given point 

in the process and an indicator when the process is not performing as 

efficiently as is should. These timelines would be flexible and subject to 

modification as analysis was performed on the accuracy of the initial attempt to 

establish these timelines. We consider the recommendation resolved but will 

keep it open until a set of formal timelines is provided. 

Recommendation Number 4 - Resolved - Open. The USMS accepted 

our recommendation to meet established Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) 

timelines and return cases that do not meet these timelines to the appropriate 

office to continue with formal processing. We consider the recommendation 
resolved but will keep it open until a copy of the revised ADR policy is provided. 

Recommendation Number 5 - Resolved - Closed. The USMS accepted 

our recommendation to develop and implement a strategy for increasing the 

use of trained USMS ADR facilitators. Due to a change in ADR policy, which 

will reduce the number of ADR cases and will remove the need for increasing 

the use of trained facilitators, we consider the recommendation resolved - 

closed. 

Recommendation Number 6 - Resolved - Open. The USMS accepted 

our recommendation to accept only eligible cases for ADR and at the 

appropriate stage. We consider the recommendation resolved but will keep it 

open until a copy of the revised ADR policy detailing the change is provided. 

Recommendation Number 7 - Resolved - Closed. The USMS accepted 

our recommendation to ensure that consistent, accurate, and complete data is 

entered in a timely manner in the ADR database to allow for more effective 

monitoring, oversight, and reporting. Based on the USMS response that 

additional staffing will prevent data integrity from being a concern in the future 

we consider the recommendation resolved - closed. 

Recommendation Number 8 - Resolved - Open. The USMS accepted 

our recommendation to develop and implement data collection, entry, and 

review standards for the ERT's automated database. We consider the 

recommendation resolved but will keep it open until a copy of the data entry 

standards, scheduled to be completed by November 30, 2001, are provided. 

Recommendation Number 9 - Resolved - Closed. The USMS accepted 

our recommendation to reactivate meetings with representatives for the 

appropriate entities involved in the discipline process to identify and solve 

disciplinary process issues. Based on the USMS response we consider this 

recommendation resolved - closed. 

Recommendation Number 10 - Resolved - Closed. The USMS accepted 

our recommendation to develop performance standards for the adjudication of 

misconduct cases and monitor cases against those standards. The USMS 

response only refers to performance standards that address timelines for part 

of the adjudication segment of the discipline process. These timelines are a first 

step towards measuring an important aspect of the discipline process, but the 

timelines should be expanded to include all activities involved in case 

adjudication. The USMS should also consider the establishment and 

implementation of performance standards for other important aspects of the 

discipline process, such as consistency or customer satisfaction. The USMS 

will not be able to measure the success or improve the discipline program 

without having complete timelines and other performance standards in place. 

Based on the response and discussions with USMS officials, we consider this 
recommendation resolved - closed. 

Recommendation Number 11 - Resolved - Open. The USMS accepted 

our recommendation to report all misconduct allegations to the Office of 

Internal Affairs (OIA). We consider the recommendation resolved but will keep it 

open until a copy of the memorandum distributed to internal USMS entities is 

provided. 

Recommendation Number 12 - Resolved - Closed. The USMS accepted 

our recommendation for the OIA to report all misconduct allegations to the OIG 

in accordance with OIG policy. Based on the response provided by the USMS 

we consider this recommendation resolved - closed. 

 Please provide the information required to close the open 

recommendations within 45 days of this memorandum. If you cannot provide 

the information or cannot complete the corrective action, please advise us of 

the expected completion date. If you have any questions regarding your 

response, please contact Barbara Kee on 202-616-4615. 

 cc: Isabel Howell 

 Liaison 

 U.S. Marshals Service 

Vickie Sloan 

Director 

Departmental Audit Liaison Office