The Federal Air Marshal 

Service Has Sufficient 

Policies and Procedures 

for Addressing 

Misconduct 

September 13, 2017 

OIG-17-104 
 

 

 

 

DHS OIG HIGHLIGHTS
 

The Federal Air Marshal Service Has Sufficient 

Policies and Procedures for Addressing Misconduct 
 

September 13, 2017 

Why We Did 

This Audit 

The TSA Office of Inspection 

Accountability Act of 2015, 

Public Law 114-53, required 

us to review FAMS personnel 

policies and procedures for 

identifying misuse of 

Government resources and 

existing code of conduct or 

integrity policies with respect 

to instances of misconduct. 

What We 

Recommend 

This report contains no 

recommendations. 

For Further Information: 

Contact our Office of Public Affairs at 

(202) 254-4100, or email us at 

DHS-OIG.OfficePublicAffairs@oig.dhs.gov 

What We Found 

The Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS) is a division of the 

Transportation Security Administration (TSA). FAMS is 

responsible for promoting confidence in civil aviation by 

deploying Federal air marshals to detect, deter, and defeat 

hostile acts targeting transportation systems. Because of its 

law enforcement mission, FAMS developed a series of 

unique policies and procedures to address conduct related 

to air marshals’ specific duties, while also operating under 

the purview of TSA’s conduct code and misconduct policies 

and procedures. 

FAMS has sufficient policies and procedures to establish 

expectations for appropriate conduct, identify misuse of 

Government resources, and address misconduct 

allegations. FAMS’ policies specifically require all employees 

to report suspected misconduct. Additionally, TSA and 

FAMS have a systematic and multilayered process for 

handling FAMS misconduct issues, which includes review 

of misconduct allegations by two separate and independent 

offices. 

FAMS Response 

FAMS had no additional comments, and TSA stated that it 

will continue to apply its policies and procedures to help 

ensure conduct issues are addressed appropriately. 

www.oig.dhs.gov OIG-17-104 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Washington, DC 20528 / www.oig.dhs.gov 

September 13, 2017 

MEMORANDUM FOR: 

FROM: 

Roderick Allison 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Law Enforcement ­

Federal Air Marshal Service 

Transportation Security Administration 

John V. Kelly ~_f.. ~.? Deputy Inspector General 

SUBJECT: The Federal Air Marshal Service Has Sufficient Policies 

and Procedures for Addressing Misconduct 

Attached for your information is our final report, The Federal Air Marshal 

Service Has Sufficient Policies and Procedures for Addressing Misconduct. We 

incorporated the formal comments from Administrator Pekoske in the final 

report. The report contains no recommendations. 

Consistent with our responsibility under the Inspector General Act, we will 

provide copies of our report to congressional committees with oversight and 

appropriation responsibility over the Department of Homeland Security. We will 

post the report on our website for public dissemination. 

Please call me with any questions, or your staff may contact 

Donald Bumgardner, Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audits, at 

(202) 254-4100; or Lisa Yonder Haar, Audit Director, at (202) 254-4143. 

Attachment 

www.oig.dhs.gov 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Background 

The Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS) is a division of the Transportation 

Security Administration (TSA). FAMS is responsible for promoting confidence in 

civil aviation by deploying Federal air marshals to detect, deter, and defeat 

hostile acts targeting transportation systems. Because of its law enforcement 

mission, FAMS developed a series of unique policies and procedures to address 

conduct related to air marshals’ specific duties, while also operating under the 

purview of TSA’s conduct code and misconduct policies and procedures. 

The TSA Office of Inspection Accountability Act of 2015 (Public Law 114-53), 

required us (the Office of Inspector General) to review FAMS’ policies and 

procedures for identifying misuse of Government resources, as well as the 

administration of FAMS’ code of conduct or integrity policies with respect to 

instances of misconduct. We incorporated this requirement into our ongoing 

department-wide audit of conduct and discipline, which seeks to determine 

whether the Department of Homeland Security and its components have 

sufficient processes and procedures to address conduct issues. This report 

addresses our findings for FAMS. We plan to issue separate reports for other 

selected components and a summary report at the conclusion of the conduct 

and discipline audit.1 

Results of Audit 

FAMS has sufficient policies and procedures to establish expectations for 

appropriate conduct, identify misuse of Government resources, and address 

misconduct allegations. FAMS’ policies specifically require all employees to 

report suspected misconduct. Additionally, TSA and FAMS have a systematic 

and multilayered process for handling FAMS misconduct issues, which 

includes review of misconduct allegations by two separate and independent 

offices. 

Establishing Expectations for Conduct 

TSA and FAMS have several policies that establish expectations for appropriate 

conduct. FAMS’ Employee Responsibilities and Conduct policy and TSA’s 

Employee Responsibilities and Code of Conduct address behavioral expectations 

in the performance of duties, as well as specific expectations for the use of 

Government resources, including: 

x protecting and conserving Government property, and not using or 

allowing its use for unauthorized purposes; 

x reporting waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption; 

 1 We expect to release the summary report in fall 2017. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 2 OIG-17-104 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

x providing efficient service to the public; 

x not abusing position or soliciting gifts based on employees’ official 

position; and 

x conserving, protecting, and ensuring appropriate use of Federal 

resources, including time, information, and personnel. 

TSA also has a Guide to Major Ethics Rules, which includes practical examples 

related to ethical principles, such as misuse of an official position and 

impartiality. Additionally, FAMS implemented several policies to clarify 

expectations for employee behavior both on and off duty. For example, FAMS 

established roles and responsibilities for personnel on missions and 

expectations for alcohol use. 

TSA requires employees to certify that they have read and understand its 

conduct code during successive annual trainings. According to TSA, 

approximately 98 percent of air marshals completed the required certification 

in fiscal year 2016. Additionally, air marshals certify that they have read and 

understand the FAMS conduct code within 1 week of entrance on duty and 

annually during performance reviews. 

Training on Expectations for Conduct 

TSA and FAMS provide training that addresses misconduct and misuse of 

Government resources. Specifically, TSA requires annual refresher training for 

all employees on its code of conduct. FAMS also provides training on ethical 

behavior during basic training, as well as training on Government travel card 

use every 2 years. According to FAMS, supervisors are required to take a 

leadership course that covers actions or behaviors that must be reported as 

possible misconduct (incidents), responsibilities for investigating cases, and 

disciplinary actions. FAMS requires each special agent in charge to certify 

annual attendance of supervisory training. Furthermore, all TSA supervisors 

are required to take specific supervisor training on TSA’s policy on employee 

responsibilities and code of conduct. FAMS stated that it tracks and verifies 

completion of training requirements in a database, which it reviews quarterly. 

Identifying Misconduct 

TSA policy requires all employees to report violations of law, regulation, policy, 

and standard operating procedures within their established chain of command. 

FAMS’ Consolidated Incident Reporting policy also requires supervisors to report 

all potential misconduct to the Incident Activity Coordination and Trends 

(IACT) Unit. All air marshals must report suspected misconduct or face 

potential disciplinary action. 

We interviewed 68 nonsupervisory and supervisory air marshals at 3 field 

offices about conduct policies. We discussed policies, policy communication 

www.oig.dhs.gov 3 OIG-17-104 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

and training, and supervisory discussions about reporting misconduct. We also 

asked how and if each person would report misconduct, their understanding of 

available options for reporting misconduct, and how misconduct is addressed 

in the office. During our interviews, we found that air marshals generally 

understood expected behavior. The majority of air marshals we interviewed 

indicated they know how to report misconduct and would report it. 

Proactive Monitoring 

FAMS employs monitoring procedures to identify potential misuse of 

Government resources. For example, FAMS headquarters reviews monthly 

Government travel card transaction reports in coordination with field offices. 

We verified this by reviewing a sample of travel card tracking documentation, 

official reports, and internal notification emails. A FAMS administration official 

also said that FAMS conducts audits of travel vouchers and provided an 

example of a debt collection letter resulting from such audits. 

Additionally, FAMS completes a compliance assessment for TSA’s Office of 

Finance and Administration, which includes a physical inventory of all 

property, quarterly firearm accountability inventories, TSA vehicle record 

reviews, and several types of financial records. The compliance assessment also 

includes a review of training records to ensure employees receive required 

training on subjects such as purchase cards and time and attendance 

approval. FAMS field offices also created other monitoring processes, such as 

monthly time and attendance audits. 

Addressing Misconduct Allegations 

TSA and FAMS have a systematic and multilayered process for handling FAMS 

misconduct allegations.2 The process generally begins when a supervisor 

reports an incident (suspected misconduct) to the FAMS IACT Unit, as required 

by FAMS’ Consolidated Incident Reporting policy. The IACT Unit categorizes the 

incident and determines whether it falls under one of the few specific categories 

that FAMS is authorized to handle internally, such as late credit card 

payments and grooming issues. (FAMS is not authorized to internally handle 

instances related to misuse of Government resources.) IACT forwards all other 

categories to TSA’s Office of Inspections (OOI) for review. 

We reviewed FAMS data for identifying and categorizing incidents. FAMS 

recorded more than 3,000 reported incidents in FYs 2014–2016, and 

categorized them in 79 different specific offenses on TSA’s Table of Offenses 

 2 TSA revised its disciplinary policies to identify the types of incidents that air marshals must 

report and implemented new policies for the investigation and adjudication of air marshals’ 

incidents as a result of our January 2012 report, Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal 

Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service (OIG-12-28). 

www.oig.dhs.gov 4 OIG-17-104 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

and Penalties (see appendix B).3 Figure 1 shows the top seven categories in FYs 

2014–2016. 

Figure 1. Top Seven Incident Categories, FYs 2014–2016 

26% 

11% 

9% 

6% 6% 

4% 

4% 

34% 

Failure to honor just debts (e.g., 

late travel card payment) 

Failure to follow policies, etc. 

Damaging government property, 

equipment, records, etc. 

Missed Mission for FAMS (can be 

reassigned) 

Using offensive or abusive 

language to other employees or 

the public

Failure to follow leave procedures 

Improperly equipped for duty 

Other Categories with <4% 

reporting each 

Source: DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) analysis of FAMS data 

As shown in Figure 2, OOI reviews the information from IACT and determines 

whether the allegation must be referred to DHS OIG.4 If DHS OIG declines to 

investigate or if no referral is necessary, then OOI further requests and reviews 

evidence on the alleged misconduct, which may lead to a full investigation. For 

some incidents, OOI officials said that if they determine no procedure or law 

was violated, they return the case to FAMS IACT for closure. OOI forwards all 

other cases and related documentation to the TSA Office of Professional 

Responsibility (OPR) to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to propose 

and sustain a charge of misconduct. OPR assigns an independent reviewer to 

determine whether misconduct occurred. For confirmed misconduct, OPR 

determines an appropriate disciplinary action. 

 3 Recorded incidents include both allegations of misconduct and other reportable incidents, 

such as interactions with law enforcement on personal time.
 4 DHS MD 0810.1 requires components to refer cases to DHS OIG prior to conducting 

investigations, with immediate referrals for cases in some categories.
 

www.oig.dhs.gov 5 OIG-17-104 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Figure 2. Process for Handling FAMS Misconduct Allegations 

Source: OIG analysis of FAMS data 

OPR reviewers use a variety of factors to determine appropriate penalties, 

including TSA’s Table of Offenses and Penalties, which lists offenses and 

recommended, aggravated, and mitigated penalty ranges. Among this list of 

offenses are specific categories for the misuse of Government resources, 

including: 

x accepting or soliciting a bribe; 

x use of public office for private gain; 

x directly or indirectly soliciting a gift or accepting a gift from a prohibited 

source; 

x actual or attempted theft, or other unauthorized taking of funds or 

property owned or controlled by the Government; 

x unauthorized use or misuse of law enforcement equipment, resources; 

x time and attendance fraud; and 

x fraudulent or abusive use of a Government charge card or travel card. 

We judgmentally selected 25 misconduct allegation casefiles to review. Of 

these, we randomly selected five cases in each of the top five most common 

categories of incidents (see Figure 1). In two categories, we randomly selected 

cases that FAMS handled internally. In the remaining categories, our selection 

was random and included all types of incidents. We concluded that FAMS 

properly handled or referred all of the cases we reviewed. 

Our review included a determination of whether IACT and OOI referred certain 

categories of cases to OIG immediately upon receipt as required.5 One case 

was applicable, which TSA timely referred to OIG. 

 5 We reviewed case files to determine whether TSA reported cases to OIG as required by DHS 

Management Directive 0810.1, Appendix A. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 6 OIG-17-104 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Our review also included other factors, such as whether the case files 

contained sufficient supporting evidence and whether OPR officials followed 

TSA’s established processes for providing notice and advising employees of 

rights when making disciplinary decisions.6 We concluded that the cases we 

reviewed met these criteria. 

We also reviewed IACT and HR databases and did not find any discrepancies 

relating to investigations or fact-finding referrals, proposal or adjudication 

information, or discipline decisions. 

Conclusion 

FAMS has sufficient policies and procedures to identify misconduct and 

address misconduct allegations. TSA and FAMS established (1) expectations for 

appropriate conduct through policy and training, and (2) policies that 

specifically require all employees to report suspected misconduct. FAMS should 

apply these policies and procedures to help ensure conduct issues are 

addressed appropriately. 

Objective, Scope, and Methodology 

The DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) was established by the Homeland 

Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107ï296) by amendment to the Inspector 

General Act of 1978. 

As required by Section 8 of Public Law 114-53, we reviewed TSA and FAMS 

personnel policies and procedures for identifying the misuse of Government 

resources and the administration of code of conduct and integrity policies with 

respect to instances of misconduct. We also included FAMS in our departmentwide audit of conduct and discipline, the objective of which is to determine 

whether DHS and its components have sufficient processes and procedures to 

address conduct issues. 

We interviewed TSA officials from the Offices of Human Capital; Professional 

Responsibility; Inspections; Chief Counsel; Finance and Administration; 

Training and Development; Information Technology; and the Office of Civil 

Rights and Liberties, Ombudsman, and Traveler Engagement. We also met with 

officials from FAMS’ IACT Unit; Transportation Security Operations Center; 

Business Management Office; and supervisors and employees at the 

Washington, DC; Chicago, Illinois; and Dallas, Texas field offices. 

 6 TSA disciplinary proceedings follow TSA Management Directive 1100.75-3, Addressing 

Unacceptable Performance and Conduct. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 7 OIG-17-104 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

We reviewed relevant DHS, TSA, and FAMS policies and procedures for 

handling conduct issues, including DHS Management Directive 0810.1, The 

Office of the Inspector General; TSA Management Directive No. 1100.73-5, 

Employee Responsibilities and Code of Conduct; TSA Management Directive No. 

1100.75-3, Addressing Unacceptable Performance and Conduct; FAMS OLE 

1112 policy, Employee Responsibilities and Conduct; and FAMS OLE 3417 

policy, Consolidated Incident Reporting. We did not test the effectiveness of 

these policies and procedures. 

We requested incident data on FAMS from IACT, OOI, and OPR from fiscal 

years 2014 to 2016. We used this data to select a judgmental sample of closed 

FAMS incident casefiles, which we reviewed to determine whether allegation, 

investigative, and adjudication records met legal requirements. We also 

compared casefile records to databases to assess the reliability of these data 

systems. From the selection of reviewed casefiles that included OIG referrals, 

we checked OIG Hotline records to verify that they were referred. 

We conducted this performance audit between October 2016 and April 2017 

pursuant to the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, and according to 

generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require 

that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to 

provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based upon our 

audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based upon our audit objectives. 

The Office of Audits contributors to this report are Lisa Vonder Haar, Director; 

Anne Mattingly, Audit Manager; Michael Staver, Audit Manager; Heidi 

Einsweiler, Analyst in Charge; Philip Emswiler, Analyst in Charge; Tessa 

Clement, Analyst; Jeanette Hyatt, Auditor; Kathleen Hyland, Auditor; Nancy 

Pergolizzi, Auditor; Kendra Starkus, Analyst; Ellen Gallagher, Communications 

Analyst; and Falon Newman-Duckworth, Independent Referencer. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 8 OIG-17-104 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix A 

FAMS Comments to the Draft Report 

www.oig.dhs.gov 9 OIG-17-104 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix B 

FAMS Incident Report Categorizations in FYs 2014–2016 

The following table depicts the number of reported incidents and allegations of 

misconduct. It is not a list of confirmed misconduct charges. 

Nature of Allegation/Incident Offense Total 

% of Grand 

Total 

Failure to honor just debts (e.g., late travel card 

payment) 800 26.02% 

Failure to follow policies, etc. 339 11.03% 

Damaging government property, equipment, 

records, etc. 283 9.21% 

Missed Mission for FAMS (can be reassigned) 190 6.18% 

Using offensive or abusive language to other 

employees or the public 169 5.50% 

Failure to follow leave procedures 131 4.26% 

Improperly equipped for duty 123 4.00% 

Improper or negligent use of Government charge 

card or travel card 115 3.74% 

Inappropriate storage, care, loss, or 

misplacement of a weapon or ammunition 93 3.03% 

Failing to promptly report violations of TSA 

policies or procedures 83 2.70% 

AWOL of one workday or less 82 2.67% 

Failure to promptly and fully comply with 

directions, instructions, or assignments of a 

supervisor or other management official 68 2.21% 

Criminal, infamous, immoral or notoriously 

disgraceful conduct; conduct that results in a 

felony or misdemeanor conviction (or finding of 

not guilty by reason of insanity), guilty or no 

contest plea, or equivalent or similar legal result 

or action (the misconduct shall not be deemed 

“mitigated” by a plea arrangement, suspended 

sentence, parole in lieu of confinement, 

sentence limited to time served, probation or 

other modification of penalty attached to the 

conviction or associated with the crime) 62 2.02% 

www.oig.dhs.gov 10 OIG-17-104 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Other1 59 1.92% 

Creating the appearance of a conflict of interest 

or of violating the law or the ethical standards of 

conduct 34 1.11% 

Fighting, threatening, intimidating, attempting 

to inflict or inflicting bodily harm on another; 

harassing or provoking quarrel; engaging in 

horseplay; any violent, reckless or disorderly 

act, language, gestures, or conduct 34 1.11% 

Unexcused absences; tardy 27 0.88% 

Using offensive, demeaning, or degrading 

remarks, comments, statements, or taking 

actions based on another’s race, color, religion, 

national origin, sex, age, disability, sexual 

orientation, parental status 26 0.85% 

Driving a privately owned vehicle, off duty, while 

intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol, 

drugs, or other intoxicants 23 0.75% 

Making misstatement or misrepresentation with 

the intent to mislead including material and/or 

intentional falsification, concealment, omission 

of fact; forgery 20 0.65% 

Inappropriate and/or unwelcome verbal or 

physical conduct of a sexual nature 18 0.59% 

Inattention to duty, where there is a potential 

danger to human life, property, or revenue, or 

damage/injury/loss actually occurs 16 0.52% 

Victim Cases2 15 0.49% 

Office of Workers Compensation Programs 14 0.46% 

Duty status tracking3 12 0.39% 

Willful misuse of (or authorizing the misuse of) 

any government-owned or -leased passenger 

vehicle (including aircraft and seagoing vessel); 

authorizing the use of government vehicle for 

other than official purposes 12 0.39% 

Unauthorized personal use of government 

computers, software systems, fax machines, 11 0.36% 

 1 Incidents without distinct allegation codes.
 2 Generally incidents where an employee is assaulted or robbed.
 3 Tracks employees on administrative leave for issues unrelated to an ITR.
 

www.oig.dhs.gov 11 OIG-17-104 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

telephones, copiers, etc. 

Use of position or authority for other than 

official purposes 11 0.36% 

Using government property, property under 

government custody, or the property of others, 

other than as authorized or for other than 

official purposes 10 0.33% 

Time and attendance fraud 10 0.33% 

Positive alcohol test while on duty 10 0.33% 

Unauthorized use or misuse of law enforcement 

equipment, resources 10 0.33% 

Violation of security procedures covering 

information, documents, records, or other 

material that is classified or SSI 10 0.33% 

Inattention to duty where there is no potential 

danger to life or property or potential loss of 

revenue 10 0.33% 

AWOL for a period of more than 5 workdays 9 0.29% 

Unauthorized use, removal, or possession of a 

thing of value belonging to another employee or 

private citizen; colluding with others to commit 

such acts 8 0.26% 

Unauthorized disclosure of PII or other 

materials covered by the Privacy Act 8 0.26% 

Violation of the duty to abstain from consuming 

or being under the influence of alcohol prior to 

performance of security-related functions 7 0.23% 

Unauthorized or illegal possession of a weapon 

or ammunition 7 0.23% 

Misuse of government identification, including 

badges and/or credentials 7 0.23% 

Unauthorized disclosure of information, 

documents, records, or other material that is 

classified or SSI 7 0.23% 

Unnecessary discharge of a weapon where there 

is apparent danger to human life – intentional 6 0.20% 

Fraudulent or abusive use of a Government 

charge card or travel card 6 0.20% 

www.oig.dhs.gov 12 OIG-17-104 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Unnecessary discharge of a weapon where there 

is no apparent danger to human life – 

unintentional 5 0.16% 

Consuming alcohol or medication, prescribed 

and over-the-counter; which impairs 

judgment/ability to safely use and control a 

firearm. Applies to when carrying a TSA-issued 

firearm, on or off duty 5 0.16% 

Acting or failing to act on an official matter in a 

manner which improperly takes into 

consideration an individual’s membership in a 

protected group; taking retaliatory action 

against an individual involved in the EEO 

complaint process; failing to take appropriate 

action to prevent or curtail prohibited 

discrimination or harassment of a subordinate 

when the supervisory employee knew or should 

have known the conduct was discriminatory 5 0.16% 

Unnecessary discharge of a weapon where there 

is apparent danger to human life - unintentional 4 0.13% 

Use of public office for private gain 4 0.13% 

Improper or negligent operation of government 

owned or leased property 4 0.13% 

Lack of candor 4 0.13% 

Violation of local traffic laws of any state or 

political subdivision while operating a 

government-owned or leased vehicle 3 0.10% 

Improper use of sick leave or other leave 

programs 3 0.10% 

Inappropriate display of a weapon or 

ammunition 3 0.10% 

Negligent or careless performance of duties; 

including inspection, investigation, or other 

enforcement function 3 0.10% 

Unauthorized consumption of alcoholic 

beverages while on duty or on governmentowned or leased property (including vehicles) 3 0.10% 

Endangering the safety of, or causing injury to, 

any person through carelessness or failure to 

follow instructions 3 0.10% 

www.oig.dhs.gov 13 OIG-17-104 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Performance issue tracking4 2 0.07% 

Unauthorized recording or monitoring of phone 

calls, conversations, meetings, electronic 

communications, etc. 2 0.07% 

AWOL from than 1 to 5 workdays 2 0.07% 

Engaging in prohibited outside employment 2 0.07% 

Failure to promptly report one’s own arrest to 

superiors and/or appropriate investigative office 2 0.07% 

Concealing or failing to report, missing, lost, or 

damaged, government property or funds or 

property or funds in the government’s custody 

or care 2 0.07% 

Failure to follow Standard Operating Procedures 2 0.07% 

Refusing or failing to submit to, or interfering 

with a TSA-ordered drug or alcohol test 1 0.03% 

Background investigation5 1 0.03% 

Any knowing, willful, or negligent action that 

could reasonably be expected to result in an 

unauthorized disclosure of classified 

information 1 0.03% 

Positive drug test or admission of illegal drug 

use 1 0.03% 

Interfering with an official inquiry, investigation, 

or administrative or adjudicatory proceeding. 1 0.03% 

Unnecessary discharge of a weapon where there 

is no apparent danger to human life – 

intentional 1 0.03% 

Any other incident in which classified 

information is not safeguarded or handled in 

accordance with prescribed procedures 1 0.03% 

Sleeping while engaged in security duties 1 0.03% 

Any incident involving computer or 

telecommunications equipment or media that 1 0.03% 

 4 Documents performance issues. 

5 Tracks background investigation issues. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 14 OIG-17-104 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

may result in disclosure of classified information 

to unauthorized individuals, or that results in 

unauthorized modification or destruction of 

classified system data, loss of classified 

computer system processing capability, or loss 

or theft of classified computer system media 

Careless and/or negligent handling of PII, or 

other materials covered by the Privacy Act 1 0.03% 

Failure to observe and/or enforce safety and 

health regulations, rules, signs, and 

instructions, or to perform duties in a safe 

manner; failure to wear protective clothing and 

equipment, including vehicle safety restraints 1 0.03% 

Failing or refusing to give oral or written 

statements, testimony, or otherwise failure to 

cooperate in connection with any official inquiry, 

investigation, or proceeding 1 0.03% 

Knowingly and inappropriately associating with 

individuals or groups known to be connected 

with criminal activities 1 0.03% 

Unauthorized canvassing, soliciting, or peddling 

at TSA or DHS worksite or while on duty 1 0.03% 

Actual or attempted theft, or other unauthorized 

taking of funds or property owned or controlled 

by the Government; colluding with others to 

commit such acts 1 0.03% 

Intentionally allowing persons or property to 

bypass required screening 1 0.03% 

Total Number of Incident Categories: 79 3074 100.00% 

www.oig.dhs.gov 15 OIG-17-104 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix C 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security 

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff 

General Counsel 

Executive Secretary 

Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Policy 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs 

Acting Administrator, Transportation Security Administration 

DHS Component Liaison 

Office of Management and Budget 

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress 

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees 

House Committee on Homeland Security 

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

www.oig.dhs.gov 16 OIG-17-104 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COPIES 

To view this and any of our other reports, please visit our website at: www.oig.dhs.gov. 

For further information or questions, please contact Office of Inspector General Public Affairs 

at: DHS-OIG.OfficePublicAffairs@oig.dhs.gov. Follow us on Twitter at: @dhsoig. 

OIG HOTLINE 

To report fraud, waste, or abuse, visit our website at www.oig.dhs.gov and click on the red 

"Hotline" tab. If you cannot access our website, call our hotline at (800) 323-8603, fax our 

hotline at (202) 254-4297, or write to us at: 

Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General, Mail Stop 0305 

Attention: Hotline 

245 Murray Drive, SW 

Washington, DC 20528-0305