Department of Homeland Security
 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal 


Discrimination and Retaliation in the 


Federal Air Marshal Service 


OIG-12-28 January 2012
 
January 20, 2012
Table of Contents/Abbreviations 

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................1
 

Background..........................................................................................................................2
 

Results of Review ................................................................................................................6
 

The Orlando Field Office “Jeopardy!” Board................................................................8 


Several Workforce Issues Have Led to Allegations ....................................................12 


Recommendation .........................................................................................................15 


Management Comments and OIG Analysis ................................................................16 


Recommendations........................................................................................................26 


Management Comments and OIG Analysis ................................................................27 


Recommendations........................................................................................................46 


Management Comments and OIG Analysis ................................................................47 


Results of Workforce Survey.......................................................................................50 


Recommendation .........................................................................................................64 


Management Comments and OIG Analysis ................................................................64 


FAMS Leadership Is Addressing Workforce Issues ....................................................64 


Appendices 

Appendix A: Purpose, Scope, and Methodology.......................................................68 


Appendix B: Recommendations................................................................................70 


Appendix C: Management Comments to the Draft Report .......................................72 


Appendix D: Selected EEO Laws, Regulations, and Executive Orders....................82 


Appendix E: Factors to Consider in Determining Discipline ...................................84 


Appendix F: Survey Questions and Responses.........................................................85 


Appendix G: Select Survey Responses by Location .................................................98 


Appendix H: Survey Questions – OIG FAMS Survey Compared to 


2010 DHS-wide Survey .....................................................................107 


Appendix I: Survey Demographics........................................................................110 


Appendix J: Major Contributors to this Report......................................................111 


Appendix K: Report Distribution ............................................................................112 

Abbreviations 

ASAC Assistant Supervisory Air Marshal in Charge 

CRCL Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (DHS) 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

EEO Equal Employment Opportunity 

EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FAMS Federal Air Marshal Service 

FY fiscal year 

GAO Government Accountability Office 

MIU Management Inquiries Unit 

MSPB Merit Systems Protection Board 

NMS non-mission status 

OHC Office of Human Capital (TSA) 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

OOI Office of Inspections (TSA) 

OPA Office of Professional Accountability 

OPM Office of Personnel Management 

OPR Office of Professional Responsibility (TSA) 

RDO regular day off 

SAC Supervisory Air Marshal in Charge 

SFAM Supervisory Federal Air Marshal 

TSA Transportation Security Administration 

TSES Transportation Senior Executive Service 

USERRA Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act 

USSS U.S. Secret Service 

VIPR Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response 
OIG
 

Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

Executive Summary 

In January 2010, CNN reported allegations of misconduct and 

illegal employment discrimination and retaliation in the Federal 

Air Marshal Service’s Orlando field office. The reports included 

descriptions of an agency rife with cronyism; age, gender, and 

racial discrimination; and unfair treatment in promotions, 

assignments, and discipline. Also included were photographs of a 

game board modeled after the television show “Jeopardy!” created 

and displayed by supervisors there, with categories containing 

derogatory nicknames referring to veterans, females, AfricanAmericans, Hispanics, and lesbians and gays. Senator Bill Nelson 

and Congressmen Edolphus Towns and Darrell Issa asked us to 

review the allegations in Orlando and throughout the agency as 

well as the circumstances surrounding the game board. 

Although individual employees may have experienced 

discrimination or retaliation, our review does not support a finding 

of widespread discrimination and retaliation within the Federal Air 

Marshal Service. However, employees’ perceptions of 

discrimination and retaliation are extensive, and we heard too 

many negative and conflicting accounts of events to dismiss them. 

Many Federal Air Marshals and some supervisors think they have 

been discriminated against, fear retaliation, and believe there is 

much favoritism. There is a great deal of tension, mistrust, and 

dislike between non-supervisory and supervisory personnel in field 

offices around the country. We identified factors that contributed 

to strained relations and became the basis for the allegations. 

Limited transparency in management decisions is also at the center 

of fears of retaliation and perceptions that management is 

mistreating its workforce. 

These issues pose a difficult challenge for the agency, but they do 

not appear to have compromised the service’s mission. 

Transportation Security Administration and Federal Air Marshal 

Service senior leadership are committed to addressing these issues 

and have implemented several proactive initiatives to address 

them. We are making several recommendations to help the agency 

mitigate these issues. 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 1 
Background 

On September 11, 2001, there were 33 Federal Air Marshals. In 

November 2001, the Transportation Security Administration 

(TSA) was created within the U.S. Department of Transportation, 

and the Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS) moved from the 

Federal Aviation Administration to TSA. At that time, the Deputy 

Secretary of Transportation issued a mandate to recruit, hire, and 

train thousands of Federal Air Marshals by July 1, 2002. 

FAMS met this mandate. To help achieve it, FAMS hired numerous 

U.S. Secret Service (USSS) retirees because of their experience 

working in a protective-oriented agency. This was made easier by a 

provision regarding their federal retirement, which allowed them to 

continue receiving their federal retirement annuity and a federal law 

enforcement salary at the same time. TSA also sought experienced 

retirees from other federal law enforcement agencies. To hire them, 

TSA requested and obtained waivers of the general restriction 

prohibiting employees from receiving two federal paychecks at the 

same time. FAMS eventually received 5-year waivers of the 

prohibition, and then hired experienced managers from other federal 

law enforcement agencies. FAMS received more than 175,000 

applications and hired Federal Air Marshals from state and local 

police departments, the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. military, the 

U.S. Border Patrol, and other federal law enforcement agencies. 

Between 2003 and 2005, FAMS underwent three organizational 

changes. In March 2003, TSA, including FAMS, moved from the 

Department of Transportation to the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS). In November 2003, FAMS moved within DHS 

from TSA to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In 

October 2005, it returned to TSA. In June 2008, TSA promoted 

Robert Bray to Director of FAMS. 

FAMS operates many field offices throughout the United States. 

Field office locations and staffing levels are determined based on 

intelligence, the FAMS Concept of Operations, and proximity to 

airports. A Supervisory Air Marshal in Charge (SAC) manages 

each office, assisted by a Deputy Supervisory Air Marshal in 

Charge or Assistant Supervisory Air Marshals in Charge (ASACs), 

depending on the size of the field office, and Supervisory Federal 

Air Marshals (SFAMs). Federal Air Marshals make up the 

majority of staff in each field office. Most Federal Air Marshals 

are deployed on commercial domestic and international flights. A 

few work in ground-based positions in the field offices to support 

flying Federal Air Marshals and carry out other responsibilities. 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 2 
As the size of FAMS increased, workforce issues also increased. 

The rapid buildup of FAMS, coupled with the task of merging the 

cultures of the many law enforcement agencies from which Federal 

Air Marshals were hired, proved to be a challenge. In May 2006, 

the House Judiciary Committee released an investigative report 

stating that FAMS encountered numerous problems during the 

rapid buildup that severely affected morale and potentially national 

security. The committee reported that Federal Air Marshals in 

many field offices expressed concerns with policies and reluctance 

to approach managers due to fear of retaliation. Following the 

release of this report, the Ranking Member of the House Committee 

on Homeland Security issued a statement that his committee, 

which has primary jurisdiction over FAMS, had worked closely 

with TSA to address flawed policies and practices since FAMS 

returned to TSA in October 2005. He noted that many of the 

claims in the report had been or were in the process of being 

corrected. 

In 2009, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

assessed actions taken by the FAMS to fulfill its mission and 

address workforce issues. It determined that Director Brown had 

implemented processes such as working groups and listening 

sessions to address workforce issues, and Federal Air Marshals 

were satisfied with these efforts. 

FAMS EEO and MSPB Activity 

Individual Federal Air Marshals have filed informal and formal 

Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaints, Merit Systems 

Protection Board (MSPB) appeals, and lawsuits alleging 

discrimination, retaliation, or improper personnel actions of one 

form or another. The majority of cases were decided in the 

agency’s favor. Some were settled prior to the issuance of a 

decision by the MSPB or the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission (EEOC). 

FAMS employees filed 280 informal EEO complaints from 

September 2006 through May 2010 and 174 formal EEO 

complaints from September 2006 through April 2011 (see table 1).1 

In fiscal year (FY) 2010, the number of formal complaints rose 

sharply. For both informal and formal complaints, the primary 

areas on which employees based their complaints were nonsexual 

1

 An informal complaint must be filed initially. Complaints that are not resolved informally may be 

elevated to the formal complaint process. 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 3 
 

harassment, promotion or nonselection, and reprisal. There were 

three findings of discrimination against FAMS in FY 2009 from 

claims initiated in 2002, 2004, and 2006, respectively. There was 

one finding of discrimination against FAMS from September 2009 

through January 2010, stemming from a claim initiated in 2004. 

Table 1. EEO Complaints Filed by FAMS Employees, 

FY 2007–FY 2011 

Fiscal Year Informal Complaints Formal Complaints 

2007 39 18 

2008 45 34 

2009 49 41 

2010 92 71 

20111

 55 10 

Total 280 174 1 Informal and formal complaints through April 30, 2011. 

From January 2005 through June 2011, FAMS employees filed 

161 MSPB appeals. Table 2 provides a breakdown of MSPB 

appeals filed by calendar year. 

Table 2. MSPB Appeals Filed by FAMS Employees, 

2005–2011 

Calendar Year Number of Appeals 

2005 10 

2006 23 

2007 29 

2008 26 

2009 18 

2010 38 

20111

 17 

Total 161 1 Number of appeals through June 15, 2011. 

Of the 109 cases that had received decisions, 103 (94%) were 

decided in favor of the agency and 6 (6%) against the agency. 

Twenty-five cases were settled prior to a decision, and 27 were 

pending as of June 2011. In July 2011, the MSPB upheld the 

agency’s removal of a Federal Air Marshal in a whistleblower 

case. 

Some Federal Air Marshals have also filed federal lawsuits in U.S. 

District Courts alleging discrimination and retaliation. From 

September 2005 to August 2011, 40 lawsuits alleging discrimination 

by FAMS were filed in U.S. District Courts. The agency won 

summary judgment or dismissal at the district court level in 22 of 

the 40 cases. The complainant in one case appealed the district 

court’s decision to summarily dismiss the case, and FAMS then 

settled the case. Complainants in three other cases also have 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 4 
appealed the district courts’ decisions; the appeals are pending. In 

addition, 10 cases were settled and 8 are pending. 

Discrimination, Retaliation, and Favoritism 

Discrimination and retaliation are commonly used terms that when 

used in legal contexts involve complex matters. Each requires 

specific elements of evidence to meet its respective legal 

thresholds. Federal employees and job applicants are protected 

against discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, 

religion, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, national 

origin, age (40 or older), disability, or genetic information. In 

addition, federal employers are required to provide a reasonable 

workplace accommodation for individuals with disabilities and for 

religious purposes.2 

Employees are protected against retaliation for two categories of 

activities—whistleblowing and exercising their right to engage in 

certain protected activities. The whistleblower category protects 

employees, former employees, and applicants for employment 

against reprisal for lawfully disclosing information they reasonably 

believe is evidence of a violation of law, rule, or regulation in the 

workplace or by federal employees. It also protects against 

reprisal for disclosing gross mismanagement, gross waste of funds, 

abuse of authority, or substantial or specific danger to public health 

or safety. The second category protects employees from reprisal 

for exercising their right to engage in certain protected activities, 

including the following: 

Filing an appeal, complaint, or grievance; 

Testifying for or assisting another in exercising such a 

right; 

Cooperating with or disclosing information to the Special 

Counsel or to an Inspector General; or 

Refusing to obey an order that would require the individual 

to violate a law. 

Sometimes employees believe supervisors have discriminated or 

retaliated against them by giving preferential treatment to other 

employees based on biases or personal relationships. If a 

supervisor gave an assignment to one employee over another 

because of a personal friendship with that employee, rather than 

basing the assignment on legitimate business factors such as 

2

 See appendix D for a list of selected laws that protect employees and job applicants against employment 

discrimination. 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 5 
expertise, workload, or performance, that would be favoritism. 

Although what we refer to as favoritism in this report is not the 

same as discrimination or retaliation, employees are still protected 

against it; employment decisions must be based on objective 

factors. An employee might interpret as favoritism what in reality 

could be fair, merit-based behavior by a supervisor in a given 

instance. Differentiating among employees based strictly on 

performance would not be favoritism. 

The Allegations 

In January 2010, CNN reported allegations of misconduct, illegal 

discrimination, and retaliation in the FAMS Orlando field office. 

The reports included descriptions of an agency rife with cronyism; 

age, gender, and racial discrimination; and unfair treatment in 

promotions, assignments, and discipline. Also included were two 

photographs of a “Jeopardy!”-style game board purportedly 

created and displayed by supervisors in the Orlando field office. 

One photo depicted the board as it appeared on display in the 

office; the other was a re-creation of the board with additional 

descriptions of what the maker believed the game board categories 

meant. According to the recreated board, categories included 

derogatory nicknames for a number of groups, including veterans, 

females, African-Americans, Hispanics, and lesbian and gay 

employees. After the allegations surfaced, three members of 

Congress asked us to review allegations of illegal discrimination 

and retaliation in the Orlando field office and throughout FAMS, 

as well as the specific circumstances surrounding the creation and 

use of the offensive game board in Orlando. 

Results of Review 

Although individual employees may have experienced discrimination or 

retaliation, our review does not support a finding of widespread 

discrimination and retaliation within FAMS. However, employees’ 

perceptions of discrimination, retaliation, and favoritism are extensive. 

Based on personal testimony and data we collected, the agency is facing a 

difficult challenge. Tension and limited trust between non-supervisory 

and supervisory personnel, poor communication, and limited transparency 

are not only damaging morale, but are also are at the center of fears of 

retaliation and perceptions that management is mistreating its workforce. 

We did not review individual allegations against supervisors brought to 

our attention by non-supervisory Federal Air Marshals. Determining 

whether one employee retaliated or discriminated against another is a 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 6 
complex matter that may not be resolved until reviewed by the EEOC, 

MSPB, or a court of law. Beginning in the Orlando field office, we 

engaged FAMS employees at all levels and at multiple locations around 

the country to gain a better understanding of how the organization 

operates and obtain their insights into incidents that have fueled the 

allegations. One of our challenges was discerning the views of nonsupervisory and supervisory Federal Air Marshals and FAMS’ senior 

leadership. 

We heard too many negative and conflicting accounts of events to dismiss 

them. Federal Air Marshals repeatedly portrayed their supervisors as 

vindictive, aggressive, and guilty of favoritism. At the same time, Federal 

Air Marshals occasionally appeared to take certain management actions 

out of context, such as feeling victimized by a policy decision that applied 

to the entire field office, failing to tell us what we would later discover 

was the “whole story,” or misinterpreting a management decision as 

harassment. Based on our discussions with senior leadership, supervisors, 

and non-supervisors, we believe many of the incidents described to us 

could have been avoided. 

We identified numerous factors that contributed to strained relations and 

became the basis for many allegations of management misconduct (see page 

12). We also conducted a survey of the entire FAMS workforce. The 

survey results echoed what we observed during our site visits (see page 50). 

One-quarter of respondents feel they have been discriminated against, 47% 

of respondents fear retaliation, and 55% believe favoritism is tolerated. The 

survey also revealed that most, but not all, supervisors disagree with nonsupervisory Federal Air Marshals’ perceptions of these issues. 

These issues do not appear to have compromised the FAMS mission. 

Despite the concerns expressed in field offices, 76% of survey respondents 

either agreed or strongly agreed that people they work with cooperate to 

get the job done. However, these allegations add unnecessary distraction 

at all levels at a time when mission tempo is high and many in the agency 

are becoming increasingly concerned about workforce burnout and 

fatigue. Management may not have attained a sufficient degree of 

transparency yet to mitigate these perceptions, but it has not been for lack 

of effort. Management has been addressing workforce issues for several 

years, and continues to take a very proactive approach to solving them 

(see page 64). 

We are making 12 recommendations to address these issues. TSA 

concurred with all of the recommendations and is formulating plans to 

implement them. TSA provided written comments on our draft report. 

We evaluated TSA’s comments and made changes to the report where we 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 7 
 

deemed appropriate. A copy of TSA’s response is included as 

appendix C. 

The Orlando Field Office “Jeopardy!” Board 

CNN reported that managers within the FAMS Orlando field office had 

created a game board styled after the television game show “Jeopardy!” 

The content of the game board, and a Federal Air Marshal’s interpretation 

of it in the form of a second game board containing more explicit 

descriptions, was extremely offensive and outraged many Federal Air 

Marshals, who alleged that field office managers were targeting them. 

Even though the incident occurred several years ago, news of it brought 

the agency under further scrutiny and ultimately resulted in changes within 

the Orlando field office. 

We assessed the circumstances surrounding the game board and the field 

office’s response. We conducted interviews of 66 personnel in Orlando 

and Tampa, including the SAC, every supervisor, one of the employees 

who created the game board, and numerous non-supervisory Federal Air 

Marshals. Based on their recollections, the news report appeared to 

surprise the field office’s senior managers. The game board existed only 

in Orlando, and was not the source of allegations of retaliation and 

discrimination in other field offices. Federal Air Marshals we interviewed 

in other field offices had limited knowledge of it. 

The game board was created by an SFAM, a Federal Air Marshal, and a 

civilian training officer in the training office. All three of these 

individuals have since left FAMS. The Federal Air Marshal, who later 

became an SFAM and is no longer a Federal Air Marshal, asserted that the 

game board was used only for several weeks in the spring of 2007, but 

another employee said it was on display frequently over many months and 

he last saw it in 2008. The Federal Air Marshal said he and a few 

others—some but perhaps not all members of the training staff—played 

the game and that it was used to make fun of those on the training staff, 

not others. We asked him to explain each of the game board’s categories. 

He could not remember some, and he provided relatively innocuous 

explanations for others. We interviewed three additional members of the 

training staff who were knowledgeable about the game board at the time it 

was displayed. One said the training staff used the game board to make 

fun of Federal Air Marshals they disliked, including African-Americans, 

gays and lesbians, and others who had filed complaints against the office. 

The other two said they saw the board but did not do anything about it. 

The former Federal Air Marshal who photographed the game board while 

it hung in the training office did not show it to members of Congress or 

the media until after FAMS removed him in December 2009. He said he 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 8 
drew a second game board, which contained more patently offensive 

categories, to help the congressional staff understand the original game 

board’s categories better. He emailed images of both game boards to a 

few Federal Air Marshals in Orlando and Tampa. One or more of those 

Federal Air Marshals forwarded the email to others on staff. An 

unidentified Federal Air Marshal distributed paper copies to several 

Federal Air Marshals via office mailboxes. The recreated game board 

generated outrage, anger, and sadness. The removal of the Federal Air 

Marshal who drew the second game board was upheld by the MSPB. 

Most of the Orlando field office did not see the game board until it 

appeared in news media, because the training offices were usually locked 

and most Federal Air Marshals did not have access to them. Federal Air 

Marshals felt belittled by the game board because they interpreted one or 

more of the categories as representing groups to which they belonged. For 

example, some Federal Air Marshals said the category “Our Gang” 

referred to African-Americans. They and others who felt targeted by the 

game board said it provided more proof that management disliked them 

and it helped explain why they had not received promotions, awards, or 

international flight assignments, or had been disciplined unjustly. The 

training staff may have targeted people on the game board, but we found 

no evidence that using the game board resulted in passing individuals’ 

names to other managers for harsh or inequitable treatment. 

We asked personnel in the field office how management responded to the 

situation. The SAC and the ASACs held a series of briefings about the 

game boards. Supervisors and non-supervisors confirmed that supervisors 

described the game board as an improper, sophomoric joke by training 

staff. However, accounts of managers’ attitudes while addressing the 

matter varied. According to many we interviewed, senior leaders focused 

on the facsimile game board and were angered that the second game board 

had been distributed to certain Federal Air Marshals. Managers felt they 

had responded appropriately. Non-supervisory Federal Air Marshals 

recalled being disappointed by the briefings because managers came 

across as insensitive for not expressing accountability, contrition, or 

appropriate outrage. Several Federal Air Marshals alleged that during one 

meeting a senior leader commented that 20% of the office staff were 

excellent, 20% were poor performers and always would be, and the other 

60% could go either way. If true, the comment was inappropriate and 

might suggest there was animosity toward Federal Air Marshals. 

This was not the first or only incident driving Federal Air Marshals’ 

allegations of retaliation and discrimination in the Orlando field office. 

The Orlando field office was under scrutiny prior to the CNN report and 

the start of our review. In October 2009, TSA’s Office of Inspections 

(OOI) had begun investigating numerous allegations concerning 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 9 
supervisors’ conduct. The basis for its investigation was allegations of 

misuse of authority or position. TSA OOI completed its Report of 

Investigation in March 2010 and provided it to TSA and FAMS senior 

leadership. In February 2010, TSA OOI began a follow-up investigation 

and completed its Report of Investigation in April 2010. TSA OOI 

substantiated the allegation that personnel in the Orlando field office 

training division played the game board. TSA OOI investigators briefed 

us and we reviewed their reports. 

In March 2009, TSA OOI conducted a Management Assessment Program 

inspection of the Orlando field office, covering the office’s activities for 

2008. Field offices undergo this inspection every 3 years. As part of the 

inspection, investigators conducted dozens of interviews in Orlando, and 

no one mentioned the game board to them. 

The environment in the Orlando field office, specifically working 

relationships between management and non-supervisory Federal Air 

Marshals, appeared tense. We noted much anxiety among its workforce, 

and the degree of animosity and mistrust that supervisors and nonsupervisors described in interviews was unsettling. Although we spoke to 

some individuals who said they did not experience or know of any 

retaliatory actions in the Orlando and Tampa field offices, the majority of 

non-supervisory Federal Air Marshals expressed fears of retaliation, said 

they were retaliated against, or cited knowledge of retaliation against 

others. Many Federal Air Marshals said they feared retaliation from 

managers for speaking with us and requested anonymity. In addition, at 

their request we conducted numerous interviews at offsite locations 

because interviewees did not want to be seen talking to us. One Federal 

Air Marshal said the last time an Office of Inspector General (OIG) team 

was there, they thought management retaliated against them for their 

involvement in those matters. Another Federal Air Marshal believed 

management was out to “get” him and he would be suspended soon for 

something, but discipline records do not indicate that a suspension 

occurred. 

Very few Federal Air Marshals in the Orlando field office complained of 

discrimination. More Federal Air Marshals felt they had been, or feared 

being, retaliated against by one of the supervisors. Several Federal Air 

Marshals described the field office as a hostile work environment in which 

management focuses more on detecting mistakes or violations and 

punishing Federal Air Marshals rather than supporting and developing 

staff. The field office has a contingent of Federal Air Marshals who 

believe they work in a culture in which senior management and 

supervisors grant promotions, cash awards, pay increases, flight and 

ground-based assignments, and discipline on the basis of favoritism. 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 10 
In addition, Federal Air Marshals in Orlando raised concerns that are 

addressed later in the report, including the need for clear and transparent 

management decisions. For example, Federal Air Marshals complained 

about not receiving cash or time-off awards and in-position increases. 

Federal Air Marshals believe there is no logic to who gets them, and 

without receiving feedback on their own performance they perceive them 

to be prejudicial and given to the favorites, especially those in groundbased assignments. It is difficult for flying Federal Air Marshals to 

demonstrate their abilities because their actual job performance is seldom 

observed. 

Federal Air Marshals also alleged a need for transparency and constructive 

comments in the promotion process. There were allegations of individuals 

who were promoted because they were part of management’s clique even 

though they were not as qualified as others or had a record of discipline 

against them. Some Federal Air Marshals feel they are more qualified 

than some of those who were promoted and do not understand why they 

were passed over. Many Federal Air Marshals are disappointed after not 

being promoted. In addition, Orlando field office managers were the first 

to describe problems with the promotion process. Without a transparent 

process and feedback, Federal Air Marshals will continue to feel that 

favoritism plays a part in management’s decisions. 

We encountered many instances in which managers and Federal Air 

Marshals provided conflicting accounts of events and how the agency 

operates. Like the TSA OOI investigators, we found inconclusive results 

in several areas. However, the tension between supervisors and Federal 

Air Marshals was apparent. For example, we reviewed circumstances 

involving the investigation of a group of Federal Air Marshals for alleged 

voucher fraud. Many Federal Air Marshals claim the group was 

ostracized. One manager believes Federal Air Marshals avoided the group 

because of the ongoing investigation and not because they feared 

retaliation. In another case, a Federal Air Marshal believes he was 

coerced into not filing a complaint against a former supervisor. 

Management denied any coercion. 

While we were conducting our site visit, FAMS leadership met with the 

Orlando SAC at headquarters. In July 2010, the Orlando field office 

underwent some personnel changes. These included the SAC being 

reassigned to a position in headquarters. In August 2010, Director Bray 

met with the entire Orlando field office to address workforce issues. We 

also met with FAMS senior leadership to discuss the status of disciplinary 

action within the field office. The individuals who created the game board 

no longer work for FAMS. In January 2011, the former Orlando SAC 

retired from FAMS. 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 11 
 

Several Workforce Issues Have Led to Allegations 

In the past several years, numerous workforce issues have undermined 

relationships between managers and Federal Air Marshals, created tension 

and mistrust within the work environment, and led to many complaints 

and allegations against managers. These issues have spawned an “us 

versus them” mentality among non-managers, immediate managers, and 

senior managers. We noted different leadership styles and attitudes 

among managers and supervisors in the field offices we visited, but most 

acknowledged that relationships could be better and said they are trying to 

communicate better with the workforce to address these issues. At the 

same time, many Federal Air Marshals seemed unwilling or unable to 

adapt to changes or to acknowledge that senior management has made 

efforts to address work-life issues brought to its attention. The inability of 

both supervisors and Federal Air Marshals to “let go” of past incidents that 

were previously addressed was a recurring theme during our review. 

Non-supervisory Federal Air Marshals were far more vocal in their 

animosity toward their supervisors than supervisors were toward nonsupervisory Federal Air Marshals. Numerous Federal Air Marshals told 

us they do not trust their supervisors, whether they feel they have been 

discriminated or retaliated against or not. Some Federal Air Marshals 

believe managers have not adapted adequately to their unique mission, in 

which the workforce spends the majority of its time outside the office. 

Some Federal Air Marshals harbor strong feelings against managers who 

worked previously at USSS. In their opinion, former USSS employees 

who are now FAMS managers have created their own elite culture within 

the organization that is not held accountable. One Federal Air Marshal 

opined that management has underestimated how much this has affected 

morale. According to our survey, 52% of the respondents believe senior 

managers in FAMS will not be held accountable if they engage in 

misconduct. When management does hold a senior manager accountable, 

it still might not mitigate perceptions because management cannot disclose 

disciplinary action taken in response to employee misconduct except in 

limited circumstances. TSA and FAMS leadership have held former 

USSS employees accountable. FAMS recently reassigned three high level 

officials who are former USSS employees. 

We observed that managers and supervisors also have opinions about 

Federal Air Marshals that illuminate their tense relationship. We 

concluded that supervisors feel they have a bad reputation among Federal 

Air Marshals because they must enforce the rules and make decisions that 

may be unpopular. Supervisors also seemed to wonder why Federal Air 

Marshals are so inclined to file complaints in response to actions that were 

management’s prerogative. Many supervisors denied knowledge of any 

discrimination or retaliation. We determined that supervisors share the 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 12 
belief that Federal Air Marshals call attention to themselves by not 

following the rules. They also feel that the brunt of Federal Air Marshals’ 

criticism is directed toward them because they were promoted or hired 

into positions that Federal Air Marshals want. Managers and supervisors 

did not hide their views that TSA hired many Federal Air Marshals that it 

should not have hired. 

Other factors have also led Federal Air Marshals to complain or allege 

management misconduct. Due to the nature of the agency’s mission, 

Federal Air Marshals have limited interaction with their supervisors. 

Evaluating Federal Air Marshals based on such limited interaction is 

difficult and may lead to disagreements. We noted inconsistency and the 

need for greater transparency and expediency in the agency’s handling of 

employee misconduct. In addition, several other operational and 

administrative aspects of FAMS, such as how it administers ground-based 

assignments, promotions, and restriction from flying international 

missions, need more clarity. 

One field office we visited had an overwhelmingly different opinion about 

the nature of the relationship between management and Federal Air 

Marshals. Federal Air Marshals in this field office reported that they are 

comfortable bringing issues to management because there is an open door 

policy and good communication. Another Federal Air Marshal in this 

field office, where the SAC was a former USSS employee, said he was 

aware of the perceptions about USSS but that in his field office managers 

and Federal Air Marshals have open communications and everyone gets 

along. A manager in this field office also highlighted that people come 

first within the scope of the mission. Another manager acknowledged the 

“us versus them” problem and said that “it’s a tough hill to climb,” even 

though a lot of managers, who are believed to be responsible for the 

problem, have left. Some of these issues may dissipate over time as 

current Federal Air Marshals are promoted and become the agency’s new 

leaders. Since January 2009, all FAMS vacancies at the J- and K-band 

level have been filled by current FAMS employees, either as promotions 

or lateral reassignments. 

Managers Do Not Interact Often With Federal Air Marshals, 

Which Makes Trusting and Evaluating Them More Difficult 

The nature of the job limits interaction between Federal Air 

Marshals and management. Federal Air Marshals fly missions 

several hundred days per year, and may be out of the office for half 

or more of every month. Managers spend most of their time in the 

office, which means they see only ground-based Federal Air 

Marshals regularly. Flying Federal Air Marshals are usually in the 

office only on their non-mission status (NMS) and training days. 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 13 
The limited interaction between flying Federal Air Marshals and 

managers makes establishing trusting relationships more difficult. 

Former FAMS Director Brown said the relationship between 

Federal Air Marshals and managers comes down to trusting the 

Federal Air Marshal. He noted that Federal Air Marshals are some 

of the least supervised personnel in the entire law enforcement 

community. Some Federal Air Marshals said the nature of the job 

makes it difficult to maintain connections with colleagues and 

asserted that team building and camaraderie do not exist. 

Most Federal Air Marshals are professional and responsible, but

measuring actual performance is difficult. The autonomous nature

of the job and the limited interaction between Federal Air Marshals

and management make it difficult for managers to evaluate Federal 

Air Marshals objectively for in-position increases, awards,

promotions, and ground-based assignments. We discuss these

issues further beginning on page 29. In some field offices, a 23-

point evaluation tool is used to complete Federal Air Marshals’ 

performance appraisals, although headquarters officials said this tool

has not been used since 2009. Many managers and Federal Air 

Marshals told us they are frustrated with this tool because it is

difficult to use and does not adequately measure performance. For

example, the only quantifiable scores in the tool are physical fitness

and firearms scores. One manager explained how he dreads award

time because Federal Air Marshals get angry when they do not

receive an award. He also explained that it was difficult for a

Federal Air Marshal to demonstrate that he or she went “above and

beyond.” Similarly, Federal Air Marshals in multiple field offices

reported inconsistencies in how managers use the tool to make

competitive selections because some managers focus more heavily

on training and firearms scores than others. 

The 23-point tool is subjective. For example, the Readiness for 

Duty and the Operational Abilities sections of the tool include the 

following elements: 

 Maintains a professional appearance and demeanor 

 Professionally interacts with airlines and federal, state, and 

local agencies as necessary to accomplish specific mission 

objectives 

 Identifies issues, reports discrepancies, and distinguishes 

problem areas for resolution through appropriate measures 

 Provides realistic, logical, and prudent recommendations 

and suggestions 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 14
Without proper guidance, supervisors may interpret each of these 

elements differently. Rating some areas without physically 

observing a Federal Air Marshal would not yield results indicative 

of true performance. TSA developed new performance plans for 

all personnel in FY 2010. The common belief among Federal Air 

Marshals is that there are limitations to differentiating among 

Federal Air Marshals when incidents do not occur on flights. As a 

result of the subjectivity in performance evaluations, managers 

tend to accentuate negative issues. 

Our survey results indicated ambiguity about performance 

standards: 

Fifty percent believe the performance standards upon which 

their rating is based are appropriate for the work they do;

 Fifty-one percent believe their supervisor has enough 

information concerning the performance of their duties to 

accurately rate; 

 Forty-seven percent believe personal favoritism is not a 

factor their supervisor considers when rating them; 

 Fifty-one percent believe their current performance 

appraisal is an accurate reflection of their performance; and 

 Forty-six percent believe their supervisor provides 

constructive suggestions to improve job performance. 

The physical layout of a field office may affect how non-managers 

perceive managers, to what extent managers interact with nonmanagers, and the quality of those working relationships. For 

example, in one field office, managers and administrative staff 

occupy one side of the building and Federal Air Marshals and firstline supervisors occupy the other side. Federal Air Marshals and 

managers referred to upper management’s section as the “West

Wing.” Given the level of tension we noted in this field office, the

layout (which the Director acknowledged is not ideal) may be

compounding issues there, and the connotation should not be taken

lightly. In another field office, management offices could only be

accessed with cipher locks until the door was eventually removed.

In contrast, in another field office that is not experiencing these

issues, the SAC’s office is the first one visitors see when entering. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the TSA Administrator: 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 15
Recommendation #1: Identify other means to obtain information 

on Federal Air Marshals’ performance that could assist supervisors 

when preparing evaluations. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

Management Comments to Recommendation #1 

TSA concurred with the recommendation. TSA noted the 

challenges in supervising and managing a largely mobile 

workforce. TSA and FAMS believe an external assessment of the 

issue would be beneficial to FAMS, and are in the process of 

identifying an independent entity to assess the issue and make 

recommendations for more effectively evaluating Federal Air 

Marshals’ performance. 

OIG Analysis 

We concur with TSA’s response. In its action plan, TSA should 

identify the assessment’s targeted completion date. We will close 

the recommendation pending review of the results of the external 

assessment and FAMS’ plan for implementing actions to assist 

supervisors in evaluating their employees. 

This recommendation is Resolved – Open. 

Inconsistencies, Need for Transparency Permeate Handling of 

Employee Misconduct Cases 

Although TSA has a discipline policy that covers FAMS, it 

appeared that senior field office managers interpret and apply 

certain aspects of the policy differently. This has resulted in 

inconsistencies across offices with respect to the types of conduct 

or incidents that are reported as misconduct and the discipline 

imposed for similar infractions, including when prior misconduct 

incidents can be considered. Everyone we spoke with, regardless 

of their position, agrees that it takes too long to reach a decision on 

discipline. 

Discrepancies in the application of discipline have affected morale 

and contributed to tension between Federal Air Marshals and 

management. Some Federal Air Marshals believe management 

uses the discipline process to “go after” Federal Air Marshals they 

do not like, rendering them ineligible for raises, awards, or 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 16 
promotions. In addition, discipline activity can cause a Federal Air 

Marshal’s removal from the international flight schedule for 

varying lengths of time. We heard repeatedly from Federal Air 

Marshals who said they constantly felt they were “walking on 

eggshells” to avoid being “written up for something.” TSA has 

implemented changes to the process of handling misconduct cases; 

however, these changes were not in place during our fieldwork. 

Therefore, much of our discussion of the discipline process that 

follows describes the process in place when we visited offices in 

the field. 

Discrepancies Across Field Offices 

We heard complaints regarding disparate treatment of similar 

incidents that field offices cite for possible discipline. We also 

heard that field offices do not notify headquarters consistently for 

the same types of incidents. 

Addressing an incident of employee misconduct begins at the field 

office level. In most cases, the employee’s immediate supervisor 

reports the incident to the SFAM for Administration, who is the 

designated proposing official for the field office, unless the 

offending employee is an SFAM or higher ranked official. The 

proposing official then reviews the facts of the incident, obtains a 

statement from the involved employee(s), and prepares an incident 

tracking report to document the incident. Until recently, the incident 

tracking report usually was forwarded to the Office of Professional 

Accountability (OPA) at FAMS headquarters, which was 

responsible for facilitating the misconduct process. OPA also 

ensured that all required TSA offices were involved as necessary, 

including the Office of Employee Relations, Office of Chief 

Counsel, and field office management. The TSA OOI or DHS OIG 

Office of Investigations investigates incidents of serious 

misconduct. If discipline was considered, OPA guided the 

decisionmaking, but ultimately, the field office proposed and 

decided the form and amount of discipline. Not all incidents 

reported to OPA led to discipline. 

Field office management said they use the standards of behavior 

outlined in FAMS policy OMS 3700 as a guide in determining 

when to report an incident as misconduct. However, some 

managers interpret the policy more strictly than others and may 

report more incidents, resulting in differences across field offices 

in the types and number of incidents of alleged misconduct 

reported to OPA. Some said they referred all incidents to OPA, 

while others said they do not because they take other factors into 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 17 
consideration, provide warning(s), or offer general leniency for 

first-time offenders. Specifically, one field office sent 

approximately 90% of its incident tracking reports to OPA, and the 

remainder were maintained at the field office without further 

action. All policy violations in another field office are recorded in 

an incident tracking report, but not all incident tracking reports 

were sent to OPA because extenuating circumstances and past 

work performance are considered first. Management in a third 

field office said they tended to give out many warnings to 

employees before referring a matter to OPA. By contrast, a fourth 

field office forwarded all discipline cases to OPA. 

We heard complaints in some field offices that management was 

targeting Federal Air Marshals for punishment rather than 

supporting them. In one field office we visited, managers had 

clearly found the right balance between administering discipline 

and supporting Federal Air Marshals by attempting to address 

matters locally. In another example, incident tracking reports were 

prepared and forwarded to OPA for Federal Air Marshals in some 

field offices who reported for a flight 5 to 10 minutes late even 

when they did not miss the flight and there was a justified reason, 

such as being delayed by a car accident on the way to the airport. 

In another office, we were told that such instances usually result in 

verbal counseling without documenting the incident. 

Federal Air Marshals also alleged that their field office would 

forward incident tracking reports to OPA for some Federal Air 

Marshals but not others who committed the same infraction. For 

example, two Federal Air Marshals in the same office made similar 

mistakes on travel vouchers and received higher reimbursements 

then they should have. One was allowed to repay the amount and 

the issue ended; the other also repaid the amount but was then the 

subject of an extensive investigation. 

Following changes to the discipline process, which are discussed 

further on page 25, incident tracking reports are forwarded to TSA 

OOI’s Management Inquiries Unit (MIU). In addition, the FAMS 

entity submitting the incident tracking report will now ensure that 

all required TSA offices are involved as necessary, including the 

Office of Employee Relations and Office of Chief Counsel. This 

function will no longer be facilitated by a central headquarters 

office such as MIU. 

Clarifying the types of incidents that should be reported as 

misconduct to MIU should improve consistency and equity across 

offices. Field offices need guidance on the types of incidents that 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 18 
should be reported to MIU in an incident tracking report and 

should take steps to ensure that misconduct incidents are reported 

consistently. In addition, TSA should provide guidance regarding 

the TSA offices required to be involved in the discipline process. 

Determining the Discipline for Employee Misconduct 

We heard complaints at all levels regarding inconsistency and 

differences in the severity of the final discipline for employee 

misconduct. Many of the criteria and rules for disciplining a 

federal employee arise from an MSPB decision, Douglas vs. 

Veterans Administration.3

 That case established 12 criteria— 

commonly referred to as “Douglas factors”—to be considered in 

determining an appropriate penalty to impose for employee 

misconduct.4 TSA’s penalty factors are based on the Douglas 

factors. Among the factors to be considered are an employee’s 

past disciplinary record and the consistency of the penalty with 

those imposed upon other employees for the same or similar 

offense. We heard numerous complaints regarding how TSA and 

FAMS considered these two factors in determining the form and 

amount of discipline. 

TSA uses a system of progressive discipline wherein the least 

severe penalty for an offense is assessed first, followed by 

increasingly harsher penalties until the performance or conduct is 

corrected or the employee is removed. Often the first action taken 

is a letter of counsel. The letter notifies the employee that future 

incidents will result in more severe action. According to TSA 

policy, letters of counsel may be retained in the employee’s local 

personnel file indefinitely. Policy does not indicate how long 

managers may consider a prior letter of counsel or how similar the 

prior incident must be when determining subsequent discipline. As 

a result, field offices implemented their own practices. 

Management at the field offices we visited differed in how long 

they would consider a prior letter of counsel when determining 

discipline for a subsequent incident and what types of prior 

incidents they would consider. In some field offices, if an 

employee had no new incidents during the year after receiving a 

letter of counsel, the letter of counsel would not be considered if a 

new incident occurred. In other field offices, managers would 

factor in a prior letter of counsel for varying lengths of time if the 

new incident was similar to or the same as the prior incident. 

3

 5 MSPR 280 (1981).
 

4

 See appendix E for a list of the factors to be considered in determining discipline. 


Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 19 
Another office considers prior letters of counsel indefinitely, 

regardless of similarity. A senior manager in one field office said 

they can consider infractions from an employee’s first day with the 

agency, whether or not the infractions are related. 

We concur with OPA officials’ suggestion that FAMS needs to 

provide guidance regarding a timeline for consideration of prior 

offenses, particularly how long prior corrective actions, such as 

letters of counsel, or discipline actions, such as letters of 

reprimand, can be considered and for which types of incidents. 

For example, suppose a Federal Air Marshal received a letter of 

counsel for a missed mission 5 years ago. Assuming no further 

misconduct issues, should that event be considered a prior offense 

for purposes of determining discipline if the Federal Air Marshal 

missed a mission today? What if the current offense was failing to 

pay a government travel card bill instead? The mitigated penalty 

range for each of these offenses includes a letter of counsel, and 

the base penalty range for each starts with a letter of reprimand. 

Although every misconduct case is considered individually, all 

other factors being equal, management in the field offices we 

visited would differ in how they considered the 5-year-old letter of 

counsel, potentially resulting in a different action being taken by 

each office. Guidance on this issue would ensure greater equity 

within FAMS. FAMS, the TSA Office of Professional 

Responsibility (OPR), and the TSA Office of Human Capital 

(OHC) should work together to provide guidance and clarification 

regarding how long prior corrective or discipline actions should be 

considered and for which types of incidents. 

Efforts To Ensure Similar Discipline for Similar Infractions 

To ensure that discipline was issued consistently across field 

offices, OPA provided the proposing official with a range of 

possible penalties for an infraction. OPA officials said they used 

their database to review the employee’s prior discipline and 

determine a possible range of penalties. However, they often 

relied on institutional knowledge to identify possible penalties for 

similar infractions rather than solely relying on the database. In 

some cases, OPA conferred with the TSA Office of Employee 

Relations and Office of Chief Counsel to determine an appropriate 

penalty. 

Once OPA provided the penalty range to the proposing official, 

that official determined what discipline to propose. This usually 

occurred in consultation with OPA, but ultimately the proposing 

official had the discretion to select a penalty within the range. 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 20 
 

Each field office we visited maintains records of discipline it 

issued and consults those records to ensure consistency for the 

same or similar offense. 

Given the proposing officials’ discretion, a proposing official in 

one field office could select less severe penalties while a proposing 

official in another field office could select harsher penalties for the 

same offense. An OPA official said some field offices tend to 

select more severe penalties than others. Allowing selection 

anywhere in the penalty range increases the possibility of penalties 

being issued inconsistently across field offices for similar 

infractions. It also provides the opportunity for field office 

management to favor some employees by imposing less severe 

discipline, target others with more severe discipline, or use 

discipline to retaliate against employees. 

According to our survey, employees perceive this to be the case. 

Only 15% of respondents felt disciplinary actions are applied 

consistently for similar offenses, whereas 57% felt the actions are 

not applied consistently. Only 16% of respondents overall felt 

disciplinary actions are at the appropriate level of severity for a 

given offense, and 49% felt they are not. The remainder answered 

that they were neutral or did not know.5 In addition, 43% of 

respondents felt disciplinary actions are used as a tool to retaliate 

against employees (see figure 1).6 It is likely, and even reasonable 

to assume, that because of privacy rules, respondents are not fully 

informed of the agency’s reason for disciplining an employee or 

the basis upon which a penalty is assessed. 

Figure 1: Disciplinary actions are not used as a tool 

to retaliate against employees, by pay band. 

17

45

63

22

26

27

15

26

46

20

15

43

Pay bands D-I

Pay band J

Pay bands K, L, and TSES

All Respondents

Positive Neutral Negative

We were unable to use OPA’s database to determine whether TSA 

or FAMS issued comparable penalties for common infractions. The 

5

 See appendix E for definitions of the survey terms “positive,” “neutral,” and “negative,” which are used in 


figures throughout this report.


6

 Percentages in figure 1 and subsequent figures may not add up to 100% because results for respondents 


who selected “do not know” are not included. 


Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 21 
database allows only one allegation to be selected and does not 

track the allegation upon which the final discipline is based. In 

addition, without manually reviewing the note fields for each 

individual database record, we could not determine whether 

mitigating or aggravating factors were part of the discipline 

decision. 

To generate reliable comparisons in a timely manner, the database 

should be capable of tracking and searching multiple allegations 

for each case, as well as the allegation(s) upon which the final 

disposition was based. In addition, including whether mitigating 

or aggravating factors such as prior discipline were present would 

help establish comparable penalties. FAMS should be able to track 

disciplinary data consistently and comprehensively. 

Discipline Process Should Be Expedited 

The length of time it takes to reach a decision regarding discipline 

is a source of frustration and tension at all levels of FAMS, and has 

become a priority for TSA senior leadership. Numerous Federal 

Air Marshals and managers complained about how long it takes to 

complete the disciplinary process. Many employees told us they 

believe management is retaliating against them by keeping 

discipline cases open for so long, thus keeping them ineligible for 

in-position increases, awards, and promotions. The issue is 

compounded because many Federal Air Marshals do not fully 

understand the discipline process or TSA policies. 

Current TSA policy regarding in-position increases and awards do 

not prohibit employees with a discipline action in the previous 12 

months from receiving either. However, policy indicates that 

management should assess the severity of the event that led to the 

discipline, the type of discipline, the length of time since the event 

or discipline, and the performance and conduct of the employee 

since the event before deciding whether to grant an in-position 

increase or award. TSA policy does not specifically prohibit 

eligibility when there is a pending disciplinary matter. However, 

managers and Federal Air Marshals in the field said that, in 

practice, FAMS employees are ineligible for in-position increases, 

awards, and promotions in the fiscal year in which they have a 

pending discipline matter. When the matter spans 2 fiscal years, it 

may render the employee ineligible for a favorable action in either 

year. Managers in some field offices we visited recognized this as 

a problem because in-position increases and awards usually are 

distributed once a year and employees are only supposed to be 

ineligible for 1 year. Because TSA policy does not address 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 22 
eligibility when the discipline process carries over fiscal years, 

field offices have created local policies. One field office starts the 

year of ineligibility on the date of the incident; another starts it on 

the date of final disposition of the discipline. 

OPA officials told us that employees must remain ineligible for 

personnel actions such as in-position increases, awards, and 

promotions while discipline is pending because a favorable 

personnel action would indicate confidence in the employee. Since 

the discipline process could result in an adverse action against the 

employee, the agency could have difficulty demonstrating before 

the MSPB its lack of confidence in the employee if it has 

recognized the employee with an in-position increase or an award. 

Field offices create inconsistency by implementing different local 

policies regarding an employee’s period of ineligibility. In 

addition, doing so could make it difficult for the agency to defend 

its decision regarding discipline in future legal matters. Field 

offices need a policy defining when employees are ineligible for 

favorable personnel actions when there is a pending disciplinary 

matter that crosses fiscal years. The policy should specify when 

the period of ineligibility begins and ends. 

Many offices agree that the discipline process needs to be more 

expedient, but opinions vary as to why it is slow. Accelerating the 

process has been a challenge for TSA and FAMS. Current policy 

does not establish timelines for executing the various portions of 

the discipline process. We heard complaints that TSA OOI 

investigations take too long to complete, and the report of 

investigation must be completed and delivered to FAMS before a 

decision to discipline an employee is made. We also heard 

complaints that FAMS takes too long to determine the discipline to 

be imposed after receiving the report of investigation. In addition, 

we heard that delays occur because the Office of Chief Counsel 

must perform a legal sufficiency review of the matter before 

FAMS can propose or issue discipline to an employee. Employee 

requests for extensions to respond to parts of the process can also 

delay a final disposition. 

When an incident involves conduct or behavior that could 

jeopardize an employee’s security clearance, the matter is referred 

to the TSA Office of Security. Many employees believe the 

security clearance review process is part of the discipline process, 

but the two processes are separate. Both processes usually take 

place concurrently until the Office of Security decides whether to 

revoke an employee’s clearance. When this happens, FAMS stops 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 23 
the discipline process because without a security clearance, a 

Federal Air Marshal is unable to work. If a Federal Air Marshal 

successfully appeals the revocation, FAMS restarts the discipline 

process once the security clearance has been reinstated. This 

process can be confusing for Federal Air Marshals because they 

feel they have already been punished by not being able to work 

during the period when their security clearance was revoked. We 

did not assess the average length of time it takes to conduct 

security clearance reviews, but we were told it is not unusual for 

the process, which may include an appeal to the DHS Security 

Appeals Board, to take more than a year. 

We attempted to determine which stages of the discipline process 

may be delaying the overall process. Different TSA offices track 

different portions of the process, but no office is tracking all 

stages. For example, TSA OOI tracks information on referrals it 

receives and cases it investigates by case agent, case number, 

region, and subject name but not by date. Employee Relations 

officials told us they have used multiple systems to track discipline 

over the years, and data are missing for some periods. In addition, 

they said that not all FAMS discipline would be entered in their 

system. 

Although OPA was still in the process of backfilling fields with 

old records, its database was the most comprehensive. We 

reviewed a random sample of 2,676 records from OPA’s database, 

dated from September 2005 to February 2011. OPA officials told 

us they evaluated cases opened between January 2009 and January 

2011, and the average duration from case opening to issuance of 

discipline was 118 days. We did not review the methodology OPA 

used in its evaluation. We determined the following: 

 Of 2,038 completed cases that had a case open date and a 

final disposition date in the database, the average case 

duration was 145 days. 

 The 497 cases that were pending in the database on 

February 2, 2011, had been open an average of 309 days. 

Of the 2,676 records we reviewed, 347 were investigated by TSA 

OOI. Although there is no written policy stipulating the amount of 

time for completing an investigation, TSA OOI requires a report of 

investigation to be submitted within 120 days. We determined the 

following: 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 24
 Of the 143 records with both TSA OOI case acceptance and 

report of investigation dates, it took TSA OOI an average 

of 184 days to complete its report of investigation. 

 Of 151 records with both TSA OOI reports of investigation 

and OPA receipt dates, it took TSA OOI an average of 39 

days to send the report to OPA. 

We did not determine how long it takes to perform a legal 

sufficiency review for disciplinary decisions. Neither OPA nor 

Employee Relations tracked the amount of time that a given case 

was under review by the Office of Chief Counsel. We did not seek 

further clarification from TSA Office of Chief Counsel about how 

it performs legal sufficiency reviews or how long it takes to 

perform them. 

TSA should develop a comprehensive system to track all stages of 

the discipline process and movement of individual cases through 

the process. OHC, OOI, and OPR are working together to develop 

a shared database to track for all misconduct cases from opening 

through actions taken. The database will be located in OHC. TSA 

should ensure that all offices with responsibilities in the discipline 

process update the database in a timely manner. 

Discipline Process Is Changing but Details Need To Be Completed 

In September 2010, TSA established OPR to ensure that 

allegations of misconduct are thoroughly investigated and 

discipline is appropriate and fair across TSA, including FAMS. As 

a result, OPA was dissolved from FAMS in February 2011. TSA 

OOI’s MIU assumed OPA’s functions. Under a new TSA policy, 

OOI will investigate all allegations of misconduct against all 

Federal Air Marshals and other FAMS employees at the K-band 

level or above. OPR will adjudicate all disciplinary matters 

involving these employees. This change is designed to ensure that 

independent offices are responsible for investigating and 

adjudicating these cases. We believe this is a positive 

development because it removes this responsibility, as well as 

possible bias, from field offices. 

OPR officials said they will receive all TSA OOI reports of 

investigation involving FAMS employees. OPR plans to 

communicate directly with TSA OOI about exactly what it needs 

in an investigation to minimize the duration of future investigations.

Upon receipt of the report of investigation, OPR will request 

comments from the employee’s field office regarding penalty 

factors. The field offices will be expected to provide this 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 25
information within 14 days so that OPR can propose discipline in 

the case within 30 days of receiving TSA OOI’s report of 

investigation. The employee then will have 7 days to respond to 

the proposed discipline, and OPR will issue its final decision 

regarding discipline within another 21 days. Extensions could 

occur in extraordinary circumstances. 

OPR officials will act as the proposing or deciding officials in all 

FAMS discipline cases. According to the OPA database, OPA 

received 723 incident tracking reports in FY 2010 for FAMS 

employees. OOI accepted 99 of the 723 reports for investigation. 

Of the remaining 624, the primary offense against the employee in 

601 of them could result in informal or formal discipline; however, 

each would have to undergo some sort of review or investigative 

process to determine what action should be taken. Under the new 

TSA policies, all such cases will be referred to OOI for 

investigation and then forwarded to OPR for adjudication. Both 

OOI and OPR are reviewing how best to carry out these 

responsibilities, given available resources. OPR will work with 

OOI and FAMS to clarify which types of incidents constitute 

potential misconduct and thus need to be referred to OOI. 

TSA published a Table of Offenses and Penalties in September 

2011, which includes offense descriptions, citations to relevant 

policies, and recommended penalties for each penalty range. The 

penalties fall under three options: a base penalty range, a penalty 

range when mitigating factors are present, and a penalty range 

when aggravating factors are present. OPR and OHC worked with 

many offices within TSA, including FAMS, to ensure that the most 

common infractions are included in the table and to generate 

appropriate penalties for each. We applaud OPR’s decision to 

collaborate directly with FAMS rather than rely on current 

discipline databases to determine appropriate penalties. OPR 

officials expect, and we agree, that the table, which is available to 

all TSA employees, will increase transparency in the disciplinary 

process and consistency in adjudications. This is a critical 

development as it relates to Federal Air Marshals’ allegations 

regarding discipline. There is near unanimous support for OPR 

across FAMS. OPR is working with OHC and OOI to generate a 

shared database that will track a case through each stage of the 

discipline process. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the TSA Administrator: 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 26 
Recommendation #2 (Revised): Provide guidance regarding the 

types of incidents the Federal Air Marshal Service should and 

should not report to the Office of Inspection in an incident tracking 

report. 

Recommendation #3: Provide additional guidance and 

clarification regarding employee ineligibility for favorable 

personnel actions when there is a pending disciplinary matter that 

spans performance cycles, including when the period of 

ineligibility begins and ends. The guidance should be 

disseminated to all Federal Air Marshal Service personnel. 

Recommendation #4: In consultation with the Director of the 

Federal Air Marshal Service, the Assistant Administrator of the 

Office of Professional Responsibility, and the Assistant 

Administrator of the Office of Human Capital, provide guidance 

and clarification regarding how long prior corrective or discipline 

actions should be considered and for which types of incidents. 

Current training to supervisors and the workforce concerning 

conduct should be assessed and additional training provided as 

necessary. 

Recommendation #5: Develop a comprehensive system to track 

all stages of the discipline process. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

Management Comments to Recommendation #2 

TSA concurred with the recommendation. In its response, TSA 

indicated that under new policies, OOI will investigate all 

allegations of misconduct involving all Federal Air Marshals and 

OPR will adjudicate them. In light of these developments, TSA 

suggested that the recommendation be revised. TSA stated that 

OOI, OPR, and OLE/FAMS will work to provide guidance 

regarding the types of incidents the Federal Air Marshal Service 

should and should not report to OOI in an incident tracking report. 

OIG Analysis 

We concur with TSA’s response and have revised the 

recommendation. We also made changes to the draft report to 

reflect the new procedures. In its action plan, TSA should discuss 

its strategy and timeline for providing guidance regarding the types 

of incidents to be reported to OOI. 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 27 
This recommendation is Resolved – Open. 

Management Comments to Recommendation #3 

TSA concurred with the recommendation. FAMS and OHC are 

working together to develop more detailed guidance regarding 

these issues. However, TSA said definitive timelines cannot be 

given regarding employee ineligibility when there is a pending 

disciplinary matter because it would limit supervisors’ ability to 

manage issues on a case-by-case basis. 

OIG Analysis 

Although TSA indicated concurrence with the recommendation, its 

response indicates only partial concurrence. Current policy states 

that an in-position increase may not be appropriate if an employee 

has had disciplinary action within the last 12 months, but it does 

not indicate eligibility during the period while the disciplinary 

matter is pending. We believe TSA should be able to provide 

general guidance regarding eligibility during this period to improve 

consistency across field offices without limiting a supervisor’s 

ability to manage favorable personnel actions on a case-by-case 

basis. We will close this recommendation pending receipt and 

review of this guidance. 

This recommendation is Resolved – Open. 

Management Comments to Recommendation #4 

TSA concurred with the recommendation. OHC, OPR, and FAMS 

are collaborating to develop additional guidance and clarification 

to supervisors. In addition, they will assess and issue training 

materials and reminders on conduct. 

OIG Analysis 

We concur with TSA’s response. In its action plan, TSA should 

provide OIG with copies of the guidance and training materials. 

This recommendation is Resolved – Open. 

Management Comments to Recommendation #5 

TSA concurred with the recommendation. In April 2011, TSA 

created an Integrated Project Team with representatives and 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 28 
subject matter experts from OHC, OPR, OOI, and the Chief 

Information Office to create a common database to track all phases 

of the disciplinary process. OPR’s initial requirements were added 

to the existing Employee Relations Case Management Tracking 

system and implemented in June 2011, with additional functionality 

implemented in October 2011. OOI’s functional requirements 

were approved in September 2011, and the functionality for OOI 

and the process flow between the offices will be developed, tested, 

and implemented throughout the remainder of 2011. 

OIG Analysis 

We concur with TSA’s response. Our review of the Employee 

Relations Case Management Tracking system raised concerns 

regarding the use of this database to track the discipline process. 

Although the database appeared to be capable of tracking a case’s 

movement through different phases and offices, users often did not 

utilize these capabilities. For example, a case may have been sent 

to the Office of Counsel for review, but that field in the database 

was not completed. TSA should ensure that processes exist and 

responsibility is designated for keeping the database complete and 

up-to-date. In addition, given that multiple offices likely will be 

responsible for updating different fields within the database, 

responsibility for overseeing the database should be designated to 

ensure that all phases of the disciplinary process are consistently 

entered into the database. We will close this recommendation 

upon receipt and review of the expanded functionalities and 

process flows of the database, as well as guidance regarding 

responsibilities for its updating and oversight. 

This recommendation is Resolved – Open. 

FAMS Needs More Transparency and Consistency in the 

Workplace 

In addition to limited interaction and administration of discipline, 

other aspects of agency decisionmaking have contributed to 

Federal Air Marshals alleging favoritism by senior and immediate 

managers. Favoritism was alleged in selection for international 

missions, ground-based assignments, in-position increases and 

awards, promotions, the Senior Federal Air Marshal program, and 

leave. Figure 2 shows respondents’ perceptions of favoritism in 

some of these areas. 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 29 
Figure 2: Personal favoritism is not a factor. 

15

23

25

31

37

48

22

19

17

21

26

20

17

20

61

55

47

24

29

31

55

Promotions

Raises

Awards

Ground Assignments

International Missions

Ratings

Workplace Overall

Positive Neutral Negative

Aside from leave, two factors make decisionmaking in these areas 

more challenging for managers. First, it is difficult to differentiate 

Federal Air Marshals by seniority because they are generally equal 

in tenure, having been hired at about the same time. Second, the 

nature of the job makes it difficult for Federal Air Marshals to 

differentiate their accomplishments from those of their peers. In 

the absence of clear guidance for those programs requiring a 

selection process, field office managers have created their own 

criteria. After the field office manager selects an individual for a 

ground-based assignment, award, or Senior Federal Air Marshal 

position, the other Federal Air Marshals seldom receive 

information as to why they were not selected. 

Ground-based Assignments 

FAMS has several ground-based positions that support all aspects 

of its mission. These positions include scheduling missions, 

training and managing training, and liaising with local airports. In 

addition, Federal Air Marshals can be assigned to Visible 

Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) teams, which provide 

security nationwide for mass transit systems, or to a Joint 

Terrorism Task Force led by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

Each field office has only a few ground-based positions. Although 

headquarters has provided guidance for filling these positions, field 

office managers have discretion in determining the criteria used for 

selecting Federal Air Marshals to fill the positions and the duration 

of the ground-based assignment. Our survey showed that 42% of 

respondents believed the criteria for being selected for groundbased assignments are clearly communicated (see figure 3). 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 30 
Figure 3: The criteria for being selected for ground-based 

assignments are clearly communicated, by pay band. 

39

52

66

42

17

16

7

16

33

17

7

31

Pay bands D-I

Pay band J

Pay bands K, L, and TSES

All Respondents

Positive Neutral Negative

The field offices we visited conducted open competitions. Federal 

Air Marshals must submit an application and be interviewed by a 

selection panel. The SAC makes the selection decision. Federal 

Air Marshals have concerns that managers consider factors other 

than merit when making these selections. Many Federal Air 

Marshals described the relationship between Federal Air Marshals 

in ground-based positions and management as a system based on 

personal friendships, saying that being selected for a position 

depends on whether management likes an individual. 

Managers said they consider the qualifications of the employee, 

including shooting and physical fitness scores, prior experience, 

computer skills, and how well employees present themselves in 

interviews. In response to our survey, greater percentages of 

senior managers and J-band supervisors indicated that those 

selected for ground-based positions meet the stated criteria, 

although J-band supervisors’ responses were not as positive.7 

Overall, 31% of respondents believe that employees selected meet 

the stated criteria (see figure 4). 

7

 TSA uses an “SV” or Shared Value grading system, which is a system of discrete grades with pay ranges 

that differ from “GS” or General Schedule pay ranges. Grade levels are identified by a letter. Grade levels 

SV-G to SV-K roughly equate to GS-11 to GS-15, respectively. 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 31 
Figure 4: Those employees selected for ground-based 

assignments meet the stated criteria, by pay band. 

27

47

62

31

27

24

12

26

26

10

6

24

Pay bands D-I

Pay band J

Pay bands K, L, and TSES

All Respondents

Positive Neutral Negative

In March 2011, headquarters emailed guidance to the field offices 

informing SACs that they may determine the length of the groundbased assignment as long as it does not exceed 36 consecutive 

months. If ground-based assignments exceed 36 consecutive 

months, the SAC must submit a memo to the Regional Deputy 

Assistant Director to explain the special circumstance. 

Additionally, a Federal Air Marshal who completes a 36-month 

ground-based assignment will not be eligible for another groundbased assignment until after the Federal Air Marshal completes 

12 consecutive months on mission flight status. More specifically, 

headquarters informed all SACs that VIPR assignments can be 

extended to a maximum of 1 year to alleviate the shortage of 

volunteers for the program. Also, according to an announcement, 

Joint Terrorism Task Force assignments should generally not 

exceed 36 months. 

Many Federal Air Marshals expressed concerns that the same 

individuals occupy positions too long and that employees move 

directly from one ground-based position to another. However, this 

did not appear to be the case everywhere. Many Federal Air 

Marshals told us they are not interested in ground-based positions 

because they prefer to fly to earn extra per diem, or they do not 

want to spend time in the field office on a regular basis. This 

results in a smaller pool of applicants. Managers acknowledged 

that the same employees often apply for each new position that 

opens, but it appeared to be less of a problem for managers in large 

field offices. At the time of our fieldwork, one office was 

weighing whether to cease asking Federal Air Marshals to apply 

for ground-based positions and begin assigning Federal Air 

Marshals to them. Another field office rotates Federal Air 

Marshals in and out of operations and training to provide more 

ground-based opportunities and ensure a smoother transition when 

rotations occur. An SFAM said that rotations were helpful because 

“bringing in new air marshals helps to keep things fresh.” 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 32 
In-Position Increases and Awards 

An in-position increase is a raise to an employee’s basic pay rate, 

with no change in position or pay band. In-position increases are 

to be awarded to the top-performing employees in a fair and 

equitable manner. Awards, which can either be cash or time off, 

are made to recognize an employee’s work contributions. Federal 

Air Marshals claim they do not know the criteria for in-position 

increases and awards and that it is difficult for them to demonstrate 

their performance. Managers acknowledge that it is difficult to 

differentiate and quantify Federal Air Marshals’ performance. 

Selection and distribution practices vary among field offices, 

which fuels Federal Air Marshals’ perceptions of favoritism. 

Federal Air Marshals spend most of their time outside the office. 

Therefore, it is difficult for them to showcase their abilities 

because of limited interaction between them and their supervisors, 

as well as limited quantitative performance indicators. It is equally 

challenging for managers to rate them. It is a common perception 

among Federal Air Marshals, as well as some managers, that 

Federal Air Marshals in ground-based assignments are more likely 

to receive recognition because they have more frequent contact 

with their supervisors. Some supervisors emphasize training, 

physical fitness and weapons scores, and writing and 

communication skills; some also consider sick leave use. Many 

Federal Air Marshals believe supervisors focus on negative issues 

to differentiate between Federal Air Marshals. Indeed, managers 

repeatedly cited discipline as a key determinant of ineligibility. 

Multiple Federal Air Marshals confirmed this practice. 

Many Federal Air Marshals said they do not know the selection 

criteria for in-position increases or awards and believe the process 

is not transparent. Headquarters officials said policies and 

procedures for who should receive in-position increases or awards 

are set forth in TSA Management Directives 1100.53-8, with 

accompanying handbook, and 1100.45-1, respectively. Managers 

in the field reported that headquarters assigns selection criteria 

based on 10 areas that have changed annually. Managers in 

another field office reported using the 23-point rating system to 

make decisions, but consider it to be ineffective. Unclear selection 

criteria have bolstered perceptions of favoritism within FAMS. 

Survey results corroborated these findings: 

 Fifty-five percent believe personal favoritism is a factor 

when awarding in-position increases; 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 33
 Forty-seven percent believe personal favoritism is a factor 

when awarding cash or time off; 

 Fifty-three percent do not understand what they need to do 

to receive an in-position increase; 

 Fifty-six percent believe in-position increases are not based 

on merit; 

 Fifty-one percent do not understand what they need to do to 

receive a cash or time-off award; and 

 Forty-seven percent believe cash and time-off awards are 

not based on merit. 

In determining how to distribute limited funds for in-position 

increases and awards, field offices have taken different approaches. 

Some managers have tried allocating smaller amounts to a greater 

percentage of their field office workforce. Others have allocated 

larger amounts to a smaller percentage of their office’s workforce. 

One field office does not allow back-to-back in-position increases. 

Some managers and Federal Air Marshals disagree with this 

approach because top performers are not consistently recognized. 

In FY 2010, 62% of FAMS employees received awards and 21% 

received in-position increases. In FY 2011, 52% of FAMS 

employees received awards and 30% received in-position 

increases. In both years, more than two-thirds of those receiving 

awards and in-position increases were I-band employees, and some 

employees received both awards and in-position increases. 

According to TSA policy, an employee can receive two 

consecutive in-position increases as long as there are at least 52 

weeks between them. In addition, policy allows employees to 

receive an in-position increase and a performance award in the 

same year. FAMS should provide additional guidance and 

clarification to field offices regarding awards and in-position 

increases. Specifically, FAMS should clarify whether in-position 

increases and awards can be rotated among staff and given to the 

same employee in consecutive years. In addition, FAMS should 

clarify to what extent discipline issues should be considered when 

determining who will receive in-position increases and awards. 

Senior FAM Program 

The Senior FAM program was established to recognize highperforming Federal Air Marshals who have exceptional expertise 

in flying missions, possess a broad knowledge of the FAMS 

mission and operational requirements, and have demonstrated an 

excellent work ethic. The program was well intended, but it was 

not well received by the workforce. In fact, many Federal Air 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 34
Marshals and managers believe the program’s execution has had a 

detrimental effect on morale. The program has further divided the 

workforce and spurred complaints. The complaints are the result 

of a number of concerns about the program, including differing 

applicant criteria, minimal constructive comments for the 

applicants, and the limited number of positions and incentives. 

For appointment as a Senior FAM, current policy states that 

Federal Air Marshals must possess the following minimum 

requirements: 

Seven years of continuous service as a Federal Air Marshal;

 Three years as a Federal Air Marshal at the Pay Band I 

level; 

 Eight hundred mission career fly days (military shall be 

treated as if they were on duty status and shall be credited 

for missed FAMS service time); 

 An excellent work ethic; an employee record free of 

suspensions or involuntary demotions and performance 

improvement plan(s) for at least 24 consecutive months 

prior to submission; 

 A current performance rating of “Achieved Expectations,” 

“Exceeded Expectations,” or “Achieved Excellence”; and 

 Demonstrated initiative in performance of duties and 

responsibilities required of the Federal Air Marshal 

position. 

The Senior FAM selection panel evaluates applicants based on 

(1) the applicant’s verbal response to the question, “Why do you 

wish to serve as a Senior FAM?” and (2) the overall quality of the 

Federal Air Marshal’s application package. Some panels added 

selection criteria to further differentiate candidates. The additional 

criteria varied among field offices we visited. For example, one 

field office also required above-average physical fitness and 

shooting ability. Another field office also considered the 

applicant’s total time in federal service. 

Not only do the criteria differ across field offices, but applicants 

still find the criteria confusing. Many applicants said they did not 

receive any comments from managers after they were not selected. 

Managers may not be obligated to provide feedback, but not doing 

so has led Federal Air Marshals to speculate as to why they were 

not selected. Some managers said they would have provided 

comments if the applicant requested them, but we did not find 

managers who claimed to have provided constructive comments to 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 35
applicants proactively. As a result, many Federal Air Marshals 

were less likely to apply again. 

The Senior FAM program currently limits the number of Senior 

FAMs within each field office. This is problematic since many 

employees’ service time is virtually the same, especially in field 

offices where attrition is low. FAMS should not restrict the 

number of Federal Air Marshals who are eligible for the position at 

each field office. Rather, all flying Federal Air Marshals should be 

eligible for designation as Senior FAMs upon meeting specific 

mission and length-of-service criteria, in addition to the 

performance requirements already in place. 

The Senior FAM program offers limited incentives. No additional 

pay or benefits are associated with being a Senior FAM. 

According to policy, Federal Air Marshals do not earn credit 

toward promotion by becoming a Senior FAM. There are no 

specific job requirements, but a Senior FAM might mentor new 

employees or serve as the team leader on international missions. 

Because there are no apparent advantages to being a Senior FAM, 

many regard the position as only a title with little merit. Senior 

leadership believes the program has value in that it provides 

management an opportunity to recognize outstanding Federal Air 

Marshals. FAMS plans to solicit applications again in 2011. 

J-Band Promotion Process 

Each year, the agency conducts a FAMS-wide application process 

for promotion to the J-band, or SFAM. Within FAMS, J-band 

positions are first-line supervisors. The FAMS J-band promotion 

process was established in collaboration with OHC and reviewed 

by the Office of Chief Counsel. Competition for promotion to the 

J-band is intense due to the large number of applicants and limited 

number of positions available. Each year more than 600 Federal 

Air Marshals apply for usually fewer than 80 J-band vacancies. 

The agency goes to extraordinary lengths to evaluate and rank all 

of the candidates. However, managers and Federal Air Marshals 

expressed concerns that the promotion process needs more overall 

transparency, particularly with regard to scoring Federal Air 

Marshals’ applications. The process has been a source of 

resentment and tension between managers and Federal Air 

Marshals. The Federal Air Marshals believe the agency has not 

fulfilled its promise to provide upward mobility to its recruits. 

Although we did not study recent hiring decisions, the promotion 

process can result in a Federal Air Marshal who ranks low 

nationally being placed on a best qualified list if he/she is among 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 36 
the top 40 Federal Air Marshals who applied for a specific field 

office’s vacancy. The agency recognizes the need for more 

transparency, and plans to implement changes in FY 2013. 

Several factors have contributed to perceptions of retaliation, 

discrimination, and favoritism, which have discouraged some 

Federal Air Marshals from applying. These factors include the 

wide variances in SAC and panel scores, minimal comments 

provided to those not promoted, and a misunderstanding by some 

that the national ranking is the sole determining factor of the best 

qualified applicants. We heard allegations that Federal Air 

Marshals in ground-based assignments, or who have worked in 

headquarters or for USSS, were more likely to be promoted. There 

were many allegations that minorities were not likely to be 

promoted. In fact, in FY 2010 and FY 2011 combined, 29% of 

Federal Air Marshals promoted to J-band positions and 27% of all 

FAMS employees promoted to the K-band positions were members 

of minority groups. Of our survey respondents, 61% indicated that 

they believe there is favoritism in the promotion process. In 

addition, 52% indicated that they are dissatisfied with their 

opportunity to get a better job in the organization. Most surprising, 

44% of J-band supervisors perceive favoritism in the promotion 

process. 

FAMS does not conduct interviews as part of the promotion 

process. Applicants must submit to their field office SAC a 

package that includes their résumé and descriptions of their 

knowledge, skills, and abilities. The SAC evaluates the 

applications, and then generates a score based on the information 

presented. A three-person panel also reviews each application. 

Typically, the panel consists of one K-band and two J-band 

supervisors. The panel reaches consensus and assigns each 

application a score. 

The SAC and panel scores are added together to generate a 

composite score for each applicant. Applicants then are ranked 

nationally according to their final composite scores. Each field 

office SAC receives an unranked certification list of the 40 highest 

ranked applicants, plus ties, who indicated an interest or 

willingness to work in the office when they submitted their 

application. Field office SACs review the list and applicants’ 

packages if desired, and submit to headquarters the names of five 

applicants from the list to fill the vacant supervisory positions 

within their field office. The Deputy Assistant Directors review 

each SAC’s preferences and make the final recommendations for 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 37 
each field office. The Assistant Director for Field Operations has 

final approval. 

Federal Air Marshals are also skeptical of the J-band process for 

other reasons. First, many Federal Air Marshals and supervisors 

confirmed that the SAC and panel evaluation criteria and the 

process have changed every year, resulting in confusion for both 

applicants and raters. Many changes were based on advice sought 

from the workforce to improve the process. For example, in 

various years the agency has tried changing the length and type of 

questions posed to applicants; asked applicants to self-evaluate; 

and excluded but then included supervisor input. Prior experience 

that Federal Air Marshals could cite on their application has 

evolved. For example, immediately following the 9/11 terrorist 

attacks, Federal Air Marshals received credit for experience with 

various firearms. Federal Air Marshals complained of not being 

informed about changes to the criteria, and senior FAMS officials 

acknowledged they do not like the fact that applicants may not 

know all of the criteria. The J-band process is communicated to all 

employees through a FAMS broadcast message. The message 

includes the timeline, instructions for applying, and resource 

materials such as the standardized job description, the candidate 

preparation manual, and answers to frequently asked questions. 

FAMS also conducts two information sessions, which are recorded 

and made available on the FAMS home web page, to provide an 

overview of the process. The agency should ensure that it clearly 

communicates specific application criteria and updated process 

procedures to all applicants at the beginning of each promotion 

cycle. 

Second, Federal Air Marshals perceive problems with the scoring 

process, specifically wide variances between the SAC’s and the 

panel’s scores from year to year, and between the SAC’s score and 

the panel’s score during the same year. Federal Air Marshals do 

not think SACs use the same criteria, but more important, they 

asserted that SACs should not score them if they are not in a 

ground-based position because they have such limited interaction. 

SACs usually solicit input from an employee’s first- and secondline supervisors during the evaluation process. Applicants do not 

feel the process is transparent because, although not required, 

managers do not explain the variance in scores. 

Incorporating the SAC’s views of the applicant’s promotion 

potential is a reasonable starting point because the SAC represents 

the Federal Air Marshal’s chain of command. SAC scores may 

fluctuate from year to year depending on the applicant’s 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 38 
performance, recommendations from supervisors, or the SAC’s 

relationship with the applicant. The SAC can raise or lower a 

Federal Air Marshal’s ranking based on these factors. When the 

SAC’s score is lower than a panel’s score by a wide margin, 

Federal Air Marshals invariably believe their SAC is deliberately 

sabotaging their bid for a promotion. However, that criticism is 

unfair as long as SAC scores are consistent. Because the SAC can 

include personal knowledge of and experience with the Federal Air 

Marshal in his or her score and the panel score is independent, 

Federal Air Marshals should expect SAC scores and panel scores 

to differ. 

Federal Air Marshals become very suspicious when their SAC’s 

evaluation is significantly different from one year to the next, 

without any apparent change in the applicant’s performance. One 

Federal Air Marshal believed that his giving a deposition in an 

investigation of another Federal Air Marshal was the only reason 

his SAC rated him high one year and significantly lower the next. 

There may be instances when the agency should address variances 

in SAC scores and panel scores in order to provide for a more 

transparent and equitable promotional process. The more data 

FAMS can include to complement the SAC’s rating, the less likely 

Federal Air Marshals will be to second-guess their rating. 

Federal Air Marshals and some managers familiar with the process 

told us they do not like the way the agency uses the certification 

list. After SACs receive the unranked list of applicants willing to 

work in their field office, they indicate their top five preferences 

and send those names to headquarters for final selection. SACs 

may choose from anyone on the list, possibly avoiding certain 

applicants even if they were initially ranked higher during the 

application process. 

It is unclear what factors other than personal knowledge of the 

applicant Deputy Assistant Directors and Assistant Directors 

consider when recommending or finalizing their selections, but we 

were told they frequently override SACs’ preferences. The large 

certification list affords SACs, Deputy Assistant Directors, and 

Assistant Directors greater flexibility when making selections. 

TSA should review evaluation and assessment procedures for the 

J-band promotion process and revise as necessary to ensure that 

certification lists contain the best qualified candidates. 

In 2010, the FAMS Advisory Council formed a working group to 

analyze the J-band promotion process and make recommendations 

to senior leadership. The council recommended a new process that 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 39 
gradually reduces the list of applicants to those who are most 

qualified. The council recommended inserting steps in the process, 

including implementing a computer-based test to assess writing 

skills and reasoning abilities as well as a scenario-driven telephone 

assessment to assess supervisory skills. If implemented, FAMS 

would design and implement study guides for each process 

assessment tool to prepare applicants for the test. FAMS should 

ensure that the test has been validated sufficiently prior to 

implementation. Finally, the council recommended that a panel of 

senior, midlevel, and first-line supervisors interview applicants and 

evaluate a core competency narrative submitted by the applicant. 

Each of the three phases will be weighted. Applicants’ final scores 

will also be retained indefinitely. FAMS plans to incorporate these 

changes into the 2013 promotion cycle. 

International Assignments and Use of International Restriction 

International flight assignments and management’s use of 

international restriction have been a source of frustration and 

tension between Federal Air Marshals and supervisors. 

International missions are the most complex and sensitive missions 

that Federal Air Marshals fly. They are long in duration, usually 

over water without an immediate ground landing possible, and 

without immediate FAMS or other U.S. law enforcement support 

available. They also require Federal Air Marshals to follow the 

rules and laws of the nation they are visiting. The execution of 

international missions could affect FAMS’ ability to continue 

flying missions to specific countries or create other serious 

diplomatic ramifications. 

Although Federal Air Marshals are not guaranteed international 

missions, because of the potential to earn higher per diem than 

domestic missions, most Federal Air Marshals believe the inability 

to fly international missions is akin to punishment. Many Federal 

Air Marshals asserted that management favors certain Federal Air 

Marshals for international flights and manipulates the assignments 

process to carry out such favoritism. Absent any apparent cause 

for removing them from international missions for extended 

periods, Federal Air Marshals asserted that managers are 

retaliating against them. 

Managers in field offices were forthcoming regarding how they 

assign international missions, and said that Federal Air Marshals 

may review the flight schedule at any time. The agency does not 

have a standard policy to guide managers deciding whether to 

restrict a Federal Air Marshal from flying internationally. As a 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 40 
result, field offices administer international restriction differently 

and with less transparency than the assignments process. In 

general, both supervisors and non-supervisory Federal Air 

Marshals acknowledged that the surge in the international tempo 

since December 2009 has mitigated these issues. Federal Air 

Marshals who desire international missions are getting them. 

Because of the recent need to cover more international flights, 

there have been fewer complaints. 

The International Assignments Process Is Transparent 

We interviewed Federal Air Marshals in the operations office of 

each field office we visited and reviewed spreadsheets supporting 

each roster period to understand how the process works and the 

role of field office managers in determining which Federal Air 

Marshals get international missions, and where. In all but one field 

office, we encountered Federal Air Marshals who felt management 

is using international missions as leverage against them and would 

deny them international missions. In 148 interviews in which we 

discussed international assignments, only 45 Federal Air Marshals 

said they thought international assignments were administered 

fairly. Others said they either did not have international missions 

or did not get them for a long time, believing that their field office 

did not schedule international missions fairly or equitably. 

On the other hand, managers and Federal Air Marshals in 

operations offices who coordinate the schedules with headquarters 

said Federal Air Marshals do not understand how scheduling 

works. They were forthcoming about the process and described 

steps they have taken to inform Federal Air Marshals about it. 

Missions are assigned based on the needs of the mission and not 

individual preferences. Most operations staff members appear to 

track the number of international assignments for each Federal Air 

Marshal to ensure equitable distribution, yet they hear complaints 

of Federal Air Marshals getting too few or too many missions, and 

not getting to travel to certain locations. Managers asserted that 

they try to keep it fair. We did not learn of an instance when a 

Federal Air Marshal was denied access to this information. 

Because of the diplomatic implications of international missions, 

the agency does not guarantee international missions to Federal Air 

Marshals. Federal Air Marshals who are not operationally ready 

should not be put on international missions. Management prefers 

to assign international missions to the Federal Air Marshals best 

equipped for them. One manager stated that sometimes Federal 

Air Marshals are selected based on their foreign language skills or 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 41 
previous experience in a country. We repeatedly heard that field 

offices do not allow Federal Air Marshals with disciplinary issues 

to travel internationally. Headquarters officials said field offices 

often consider discipline, including severity and recentness, when 

assigning Federal Air Marshals to international missions. Several 

managers advised us that international missions and team leaders 

are assigned on a rotational basis, and behavior is the only reason 

this would change. 

Supervisors and non-supervisory Federal Air Marshals generally 

agree that international missions are a privilege, but they are also a 

requirement of the job. In previous years when not as many 

international missions were available, managers said they assigned 

them to good performers, whereas Federal Air Marshals felt 

management was assigning international missions to their 

favorites. However, the question has become less relevant simply 

because, since the Detroit bomber incident in 2009, the agency has 

needed more Federal Air Marshals to cover more international 

missions. 

Staffing each 28-day roster period is complex because international 

missions are scheduled based on availability, and many variables 

affect availability. The schedule must consider regular days off 

(RDOs), NMS days, leave, and training. Field offices have 

implemented schedules that appear to accommodate Federal Air 

Marshals as much as possible without jeopardizing missions. One 

field office publishes assigned RDOs, which “cascade” or rotate 

during the year, so Federal Air Marshals know their days off in 

advance. Another field office created a flex schedule, which 

rotates RDOs every two roster periods and essentially minimizes 

less desirable RDOs. Two field office managers said more than 

95% of international missions are followed by RDOs. This is done 

so that Federal Air Marshals do not have to fly domestically the 

day after an international mission. Some field offices schedule 

training and NMS days next to RDOs to extend Federal Air 

Marshals’ weekends. At other field offices, RDOs are determined 

by squads. Federal Air Marshals in each field are typically 

organized by squads, which are small groups usually led by a 

Supervisory Federal Air Marshal. All of the field offices decide 

Federal Air Marshals’ RDOs from 90 days up to 1 year in advance. 

Each field office considered Federal Air Marshals’ preferences for 

their desired RDO schedule. We heard few complaints about RDO 

schedules from the field offices we visited. 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 42 
FAMS Does Not Have a Standard Policy for Placing Federal Air 

Marshals on International Restriction 

There is no national policy for determining whether to remove a 

Federal Air Marshal from international missions. As a result, 

Federal Air Marshals assert that managers deny them international 

missions for excessive periods without cause. Federal Air Marshals 

view international restriction as informal discipline when coupled 

with official punishment for a misconduct or behavioral incident. 

For example, a Federal Air Marshal who receives a letter of 

counsel, which is not considered formal discipline, may or may not 

be placed on international restriction. 

Of the five field offices we visited, only one has a written policy 

regarding restriction of international mission privileges. That 

policy states that any discipline, including a letter of counsel, will 

automatically result in 1 year of international mission restriction. 

This field office takes the Federal Air Marshal off international 

status on the date of the incident, even before discipline is 

determined. It may be for this reason that within this field office 

the term “Team America” exists, referring to a group of Federal 

Air Marshals ineligible for international missions. The term is 

widely understood around the office; more than two dozen Federal 

Air Marshals mentioned it to us because of its negative 

connotations. It is obviously necessary for field office 

management to track Federal Air Marshals who are on 

international restriction. It is possible that a Federal Air Marshal 

may not be flying international missions for reasons other than 

discipline. 

Field office managements’ justifications for placing Federal Air 

Marshals on international flight restriction varied. Some of the 

justifications we heard were related to medical reasons and 

passport/visa issues. We heard that poor job performance, late 

payment of expenses credited to travel cards, and conduct issues 

could warrant international restriction. The managers at all of the 

field offices we visited believe that Federal Air Marshals who 

commit serious infractions should be removed from international 

missions, or in some cases, removed from all flying missions. 

FAMS should develop and implement a national policy to define 

when Federal Air Marshals can be removed from international 

flight schedules, including what performance and conduct issues 

can cause a Federal Air Marshal to be removed and the duration of 

the restriction. 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 43 
Annual, Sick, and Military Leave and Light Duty Policies 

We heard fewer complaints about leave and light duty compared to 

international mission assignments and the promotion process. 

Some Federal Air Marshals believed their supervisors discourage 

or oppose the use of sick or military leave, and leave usage has an 

effect on how they are treated. We did not review these incidents 

in detail, and we make no recommendations concerning leave 

administration or light duty. 

Federal Air Marshals who had problems with sick leave cited 

managers tracking how much leave was used; managers requesting 

doctor’s notes; not being able to call in sick on certain days; and 

being disciplined for taking, in the manager’s opinion, too much 

sick leave. Owing to the perceived negativity from management, 

Federal Air Marshals claim they will continue to fly even when 

they are sick or injured. We also heard allegations of supervisors 

denying sick leave to care for family members and attend funerals. 

Several Federal Air Marshals claimed they were placed on sick 

leave restriction. One field office allegedly posted sick leave use 

on a bulletin board in a common area. The affected Federal Air 

Marshals believe this was done to embarrass them and discourage 

others from using sick leave. In general, managers said that 

although they prefer 3 to 4 months’ notice, they rarely deny annual 

leave. Larger field offices are able to absorb sick days and backfill 

missions better than smaller field offices. Supervisors may request 

a doctor’s note if there is a pattern of sick leave. 

Fewer Federal Air Marshals complained of problems with military 

leave, although several said they were retaliated against for serving 

in the military. At least one was told his military service was 

becoming a problem because flight schedules had to be changed. 

One Federal Air Marshal said that on at least four occasions, he 

received military orders, submitted a request for military leave, and 

was asked by his supervisor when he was going to retire from the 

military. His leave was not denied. Other Federal Air Marshals 

said they believe or had been told that management thinks they 

should choose either military service or working for FAMS. In 

addition, although military leave may introduce certain 

inconveniences for field offices, operations personnel build 

schedules for Federal Air Marshals around military leave, when 

known. Several Federal Air Marshals said their office previously 

would schedule their RDOs to coincide with drill days. This kept 

the Federal Air Marshal available for flight schedules and reduced 

the amount of annual leave the Federal Air Marshal had to take 

once the 15 days of military leave allowed annually had been used. 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 44 
Federal Air Marshals claimed management changed this practice 

and their days off no longer coincide with their drill days, meaning 

they have to use more annual leave to cover their drill schedules. 

According to the Uniformed Services Employment and 

Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), a service member 

on military orders should be considered for raises, bonuses, and 

awards as if the Federal Air Marshal had never left for duty.8 

USERRA does not guarantee that Federal Air Marshals are entitled 

to performance-based raises when they return from service. 

However, Federal Air Marshals claim they have been denied raises 

and other considerations because of their military service. For 

example, one Federal Air Marshal said he returned from a military 

deployment and received a cash award that was smaller than what 

he usually received. He said his supervisor said this was because 

he had only been in the field office for part of the year. In another 

case, a Federal Air Marshal returned from a military deployment 

and learned that several others in the office had received pay 

raises. He said his supervisor told him he was not considered for a 

pay raise because he was deployed at the time the pay raise 

decisions were made. The Federal Air Marshal felt he should have 

been considered, even if he did not receive a raise. 

Light duty is the temporary adjustment or modification to essential 

job functions that may be offered to employees with temporary 

injuries or medical conditions that did not occur on the job. 

Limited duty is the temporary adjustment or modification to 

essential job functions for employees with temporary medical 

restrictions for injuries or illnesses that occur on the job. In either 

situation, suitable work must be available. Managers and Federal 

Air Marshals in offices we visited did not differentiate between 

light and limited duty; all referred to both as light duty. We were 

told that if light duty assignments were available, employees with 

work-related medical restrictions would be offered a light duty 

assignment before employees with non-work-related medical 

restrictions. Management may change or cancel light duty 

assignments because of changing operational needs, space 

limitations, and staffing requirements or because of changes to the 

employee’s physical or medical limitations, in accordance with the 

procedures described in TSA’s light and limited duty policies. It is 

within the SAC’s purview to deny a Federal Air Marshal light duty 

when no suitable work is available. 

8 38 U.S.C. § 4316. 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 45 
Several Federal Air Marshals have filed EEO complaints after 

being denied light duty. We heard allegations of light duty not 

being administered fairly or having a negative connotation. Many 

felt light duty was given to those whom management favors. 

Federal Air Marshals also expressed confusion about the light duty 

policy. 

Several years ago, one field office attempted to make 

accommodations based on pregnancy by providing light duty. 

When another Federal Air Marshal who was denied light duty 

alleged discrimination, the field office abandoned light duty 

altogether. More recently, several Federal Air Marshals in this 

field office requested and were denied light duty. Headquarters 

directed the field office to bring them into the office to work light 

duty. In the SAC’s view, this field office did not have light duty 

work available to accommodate all who requested it, but he called 

those Federal Air Marshals into the office. He directed them to sit 

in a small room and let people into the office, answer phones, and 

make photocopies. Federal Air Marshals we interviewed who 

were in the room felt that they were being punished and made an 

example of. Management said that it was following headquarters’ 

direction, despite having no light duty. Although it was within the 

SAC’s authority to refuse light duty, from our perspective it was 

not necessarily within the spirit of the policy. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the TSA Administrator: 

Recommendation #6: Establish additional guidelines that set 

forth selection criteria for Federal Air Marshal ground-based 

positions. 

Recommendation #7: Provide additional guidance and 

clarification for awards and in-position increases, including 

whether they can be rotated among staff and given to the same 

employee in back-to-back years, and to what extent managers 

should consider discipline issues. 

Recommendation #8: Evaluate whether the Federal Air Marshal 

Service should remove specific limits on the number of Senior 

Federal Air Marshals allowed in each office and establish 

eligibility criteria for designation as a Senior Federal Air Marshal 

based on specific mission and length-of-service achievements, in 

addition to the performance requirements already in place. 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 46 
Recommendation #9: Communicate specific application criteria 

to all J-band promotion applicants at the beginning of each 

promotion cycle. 

Recommendation #10: Review evaluation and assessment 

procedures for the J-band promotion process and revise as 

necessary to ensure that certification lists contain the best qualified 

candidates. 

Recommendation #11: Develop guidelines to define when 

Federal Air Marshals can be removed from international flight 

schedules, including what performance and conduct issues can 

cause a Federal Air Marshal to be removed and the duration of the 

restriction. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

Management Comments to Recommendation #6 

TSA concurred with the recommendation. In March 2011, 

guidance regarding the length of ground-based assignments and 

extensions of those assignments was sent to field office SACs. 

Field office SACs must communicate the selection process 

structure and employ a panel of supervisors to review, interview, 

and rank ground-based assignment candidates. Those not selected 

will receive feedback on areas for improvement for possible future 

selection. If special circumstances require a ground-based 

assignment to be extended, the field office’s Regional Deputy 

Assistant Director must approve the extension. In addition, 

Federal Air Marshals who complete a 36-month ground-based 

assignment must be on mission flight status for 12 consecutive 

months before being eligible for another ground-based assignment. 

In April 2011, new guidance was sent allowing SACs to extend 

VIPR assignments up to a maximum of 1 year. FAMS is preparing 

additional consolidated guidelines on selection criteria for groundbased assignments that will be provided to field offices. 

OIG Analysis 

We concur with TSA’s response. We will close this 

recommendation upon receipt and review of the consolidated 

guidance regarding selection criteria for ground-based 

assignments. 

This recommendation is Resolved – Open. 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 47 
Management Comments to Recommendation #7 

TSA concurred with the recommendation. OHC and FAMS are 

collaborating to develop guidance to clarify existing policy and 

mitigate issues surrounding the perception of favoritism while 

allowing management to use their judgment and discretion in 

granting awards and in-position increases. In addition, OHC and 

FAMS will discuss and clarify for the workforce the applicability 

of discipline matters. 

OIG Analysis 

We concur with TSA’s response. We will close this 

recommendation upon receipt and review of the additional 

guidance and clarification. 

This recommendation is Resolved – Open. 

Management Comments to Recommendation #8 

TSA concurred with the recommendation. FAMS is examining the 

program to determine what changes may be needed. FAMS senior 

leadership has tasked the SAC Advisory Council and the FAMS 

Advisory Council to consider all facets of the program to develop a 

program better suited for the development and recognition of 

Federal Air Marshals. An ad hoc committee of representatives of 

both councils will meet to develop recommendations for 

consideration and implementation by senior leadership. Any new 

criteria for the program will be communicated to the entire FAMS 

workforce. 

OIG Analysis 

We concur with TSA’s response. We will close the 

recommendation upon receipt and review of the committee’s 

recommendations for the program and communication of the new 

criteria to the FAMS workforce. 

This recommendation is Resolved – Open. 

Management Comments to Recommendation #9 

TSA concurred with the recommendation and believes the 

recommendation has been addressed. The Federal Air Marshal 

J-band promotion opportunity is posted on USAJobs.gov and is 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 48 
sent to all FAMS employees via a FAMS broadcast message. 

Available resources include the standardized job description, a 

candidate preparation manual, and answers to frequently asked 

questions. FAMS also conducts two informational sessions, which 

are recorded and made available on the FAMS home web page, to 

provide an overview of the process. Employees are also made 

aware of TSA career coaching services. In addition, FAMS 

implemented the Candidate Dashboard on October 1, 2011, which 

allows applicants to track their status through each phase of the 

application process. 

OIG Analysis 

We concur with TSA’s response. 

This recommendation is Resolved – Closed. 

Management Comments to Recommendation #10 

TSA concurred with the recommendation. OHC is working with 

FAMS to review and recommend improved candidate evaluation 

and assessment, specifically regarding J-band promotions. TSA 

will further these efforts to ensure that certification lists contain the 

best qualified candidates. 

OIG Analysis 

We concur with TSA’s response. We will close the 

recommendation upon receipt and review of the results of the OHC 

and FAMS review and recommendations regarding the promotions 

process, as well as revisions to the process to ensure that 

certification lists contain the best qualified candidates. 

This recommendation is Resolved – Open. 

Management Comments to Recommendation #11 

TSA concurred with the recommendation. FAMS assigns 

international missions to Federal Air Marshals who are performing 

at or above expected levels; have gained their supervisor’s 

confidence; and have demonstrated the requisite professionalism, 

ability, and skills. Employees not performing to these expectations 

are scheduled less sensitive work assignments. This determination 

must be made on a case-by-case basis and final supervisory 

authority must rest with field office management who know the 

strengths and weaknesses of each Federal Air Marshal. 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 49 
Clarification regarding the removal of Federal Air Marshals from 

international missions will be provided to field offices. 

OIG Analysis 

We concur with TSA’s response. We will close the 

recommendation pending receipt and review of the clarification 

provided to field offices regarding removal from international 

missions. 

This recommendation is Resolved – Open. 

Results of Workforce Survey 

From February to April 2011, we conducted a survey of the FAMS 

workforce to measure employees’ perceptions of discrimination, 

retaliation, and favoritism. We also attempted to obtain employees’ views 

on the current workplace environment and asked about communication, 

diversity, reporting and addressing misconduct, and job satisfaction. The 

survey enabled us to obtain opinions from FAMS employees we were 

unable to interview. In addition, the survey provided an outlet for 

employees to voice their opinions regarding these matters independent of 

TSA and FAMS. 

To help develop the survey, we consulted with the EEOC, the DHS Office 

for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL), and FAMS. We administered 

the survey via the Internet and invited the entire FAMS workforce to 

participate. Approximately 50% of the workforce completed the survey.9 

A substantial percentage of Federal Air Marshals who responded to the 

survey believe they are victims of discrimination, retaliation, or 

unfavorable treatment. As illustrated in figures below, opinions varied 

among senior managers, intermediate managers, and non-managers, but 

some supervisors also perceive these issues. Almost half of respondents 

feared retaliation if they disclosed a violation of law, rule, or regulation. 

Negative perceptions are also prevalent regarding discipline and favoritism, 

even among managers and respondents who do not believe that they are 

victims of discrimination, retaliation, or unfavorable treatment. Employees 

who fear retaliation are also less likely to report misconduct or illegal 

activity. Overall, perceptions of policies and procedures for addressing 

complaints and disputes are mixed. These perceptions have real effects on 

the organization, such as increased dissatisfaction and negative perceptions 

of the discipline, awards, promotions, and assignments processes. Among 

9

 See appendix F for a complete list of survey questions and overall responses. 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 50 
 

survey respondents, 25% are dissatisfied with their job. If FAMS 

management does not address these perceptions, the problems reflected by 

our survey will continue to affect morale and possibly lead to more 

allegations and litigation. 

We also looked at the survey results across field offices.10 We collected a 

significant amount of information and observations during site visits to 

Charlotte, Cincinnati, Dallas, Minneapolis, and Orlando/Tampa. In 

general, survey responses in each of these field offices were consistent 

with our observations. Perceptions of favoritism, discrimination, 

retaliation, and discipline were consistently negative in certain field 

offices, as well as consistently positive in others. 

We also compared respondents’ answers to identical or nearly identical 

questions the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) posed during its 

2010 survey of DHS employees. In 15 of the 16 questions, FAMS’ 

responses were more negative than those of DHS employees overall.11 

Perceptions of Discrimination and Diversity Programs Are 

Mixed 

By “discrimination” we refer to unlawful actions taken against 

employees on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, 

age, or disability. Although perceptions of diversity programs and 

the existence of discrimination are often mixed, minority 

populations had a higher rate of negative perceptions of diversity 

and discrimination than nonminorities. Most respondents (77%) 

believe they know whom to contact if they feel they are or have 

been discriminated against or harassed on the job. 

One-quarter of respondents believe they have been discriminated 

against (see figure 5).12 More than one-third of respondents from 

several minority groups feel they have been discriminated against, 

the highest being African-Americans and American Indian/Alaska 

natives with 44%. The issues we identified in the areas of 

promotions, in-position increases, awards, assignments, and 

discipline have likely contributed to perceptions of discrimination. 

FAMS can help mitigate these issues by being more transparent. 

10 See appendix G for select survey results by location. 
 11 See appendix H for a comparison of the 16 identical or nearly identical questions and responses between
 

our survey of the FAMS workforce and the 2010 DHS-wide Office of Personnel Management survey.
 12 Our survey asked respondents whether they have been treated unfavorably because they belong to one of 


six protected classes. Positive responses are referred to as discrimination. 


Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 51 
Figure 5: Have you been discriminated against? 

All Respondents

African American

Hispanic

American Indian/Alaska Native

Female 

40 yrs old or older 69

67

56

61

56

75

31

33

44

39

44

25

No Yes

Seventy-nine percent of respondents who feel discriminated 

against believe the unfair treatment occurred since February 2009, 

but other incidents occurred earlier than that.13 A majority of these 

same respondents (62%) believe a senior manager in their office 

was responsible for the discrimination. Additionally, 44% believe 

their immediate supervisor was responsible and 25% believe a 

manager outside of their office was responsible.14 

A majority of respondents (57%) believe policies and programs 

promote diversity in the workplace (see figure 6). However, 25% 

of three minority groups—American Indian/Alaska Native, 

Hispanic or Latino, and female—do not believe policies and 

programs promote diversity in the workplace. Thirty-seven 

percent of African-American respondents do not believe policies 

and programs promote diversity in the workplace. 

53

43

44

37

57

19

25

26

21

23

25

25

25

37

13

Female

American Indian/Alaska Native 

Hispanic/Latino

African American

All Respondents

Figure 6: Policies and programs promote diversity 

in the workplace. 

Positive Neutral Negative

Most respondents (63%) believe their supervisor supports 

diversity. The majority of all minority groups also believe their 

13 See survey question 52 in appendix F. 


14 Responses to this question added up to more than 100% because more than one option could be selected.
 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 52 
supervisor supports diversity in the workplace. Among minority 

groups, African-Americans were mostly likely to agree that their 

supervisor does not support diversity. 

A majority of respondents (57%) believe supervisors work well 

with employees of different backgrounds (see figure 7). Among 

minority groups, African-Americans were mostly likely to disagree 

that their supervisors work well with employees of different 

backgrounds, with a negative response rate of 30%. 

Figure 7: Supervisors work well with employees 

of different backgrounds. 

43

42

37

57

29

26

30

23

26

28

30

17

American Indian/Alaska Native 

Hispanic

African American

All Respondents

Positive Neutral Negative

Federal Air Marshals Perceive That Unfavorable Treatment Is 

Widespread, but Most Incidents Do Not Meet the Legal 

Standards for Unlawful Retaliation 

We designed our survey to allow respondents to identify perceived 

unlawful retaliation, whether or not they had knowledge of specific 

legal standards. Our survey used “retaliation” to refer to violations 

of the whistleblower provisions applicable to TSA employees, 5 

U.S.C. §§ 2303(b)(8) and (9). We also sought to determine what 

actions respondents believed to be unfair or unfavorable treatment 

that would not meet the definition of unlawful retaliation. 

If respondents believed they were retaliated against or treated 

unfavorably because they engaged in one or more of six activities 

protected by law, our survey asked them to describe the retaliation. 

If these respondents indicated they felt a personnel action was 

involved, the supervisor’s actions might have been unlawful 

retaliation. If respondents selected an action other than a personnel 

action, such as verbal counseling, written counseling, 

unprofessional conduct, or “other” as the form of the retaliation, 

the supervisor’s alleged actions constituted unfavorable treatment. 

We also asked whether TSA or FAMS retaliated against them or 

treated them unfavorably because they— 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 53 
 Questioned policies or procedures; 

 Proposed changes to policy or procedures; 

 Questioned decisions made by their immediate supervisor 

or senior management; 

 Requested annual or sick leave; 

 Requested leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act 

or leave for military duty; 

 Requested schedule adjustments; or 

 Requested light duty. 

If respondents believe they have been retaliated against or treated 

unfavorably for one or more of these reasons, we consider this to 

be possible unfavorable treatment.15

It is important that FAMS recognize unfavorable treatment, 

perceived or otherwise, that is not necessarily unlawful forms of 

retaliation. Perceptions of retaliation can result in resentment, 

mistrust, group tension, reduced motivation, and low morale for 

the organization, regardless of whether a court determines 

unlawful retaliation took place. In addition, the legal ramifications 

can embroil an agency in time-consuming and expensive appeals 

and complaints. 

Few Instances of Perceived Retaliation Meet the Threshold of 

Covered Retaliation 

Seven percent of respondents believe TSA or FAMS unlawfully 

retaliated against them because they engaged in one or more 

protected activities and a personnel action was involved. 

Approximately 9% believe TSA or FAMS treated them 

unfavorably because they engaged in one or more activities 

protected by law but a personnel action was not involved. These 

respondents believe they have been retaliated against or treated 

unfavorably, but the perceived harms are not actionable retaliation 

or actions capable of a remedy under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) or (9) 

because a personnel action was not involved. 

Survey respondents selected the following reasons most often for 

why they were retaliated against or treated unfavorably: exercising 

an appeal, complaint, or grievance right granted by any law, rule, 

or regulation (9%); disclosing information believed to be a 

violation of any law, rule, or regulation (8%); and disclosing 

15 We treated a leave request under the Family and Medical Leave Act as “unfavorable treatment” in our 

report even though it constitutes unlawful retaliation under 29 U.S.C. § 2615.

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 54
 

information believed to be a gross mismanagement, a gross waste 

of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger 

to public health or safety (6%).16 

More than half of the 16% who believe they were retaliated against 

or treated unfavorably because they engaged in one or more 

activities protected by law feel the retaliation was in the form of 

what was perceived to be unprofessional conduct. This means the 

incident did not actually raise to the level of covered, actionable 

retaliation, although it may have been covered by agency policy. 

Forty-four percent of respondents who believe they were retaliated 

against or treated unfavorably because they engaged in one or 

more activities protected by law believe the retaliation was in the 

form of a personnel action. 

Perceived Unfavorable Treatment Is Prevalent 

Almost one-third of respondents (32%) believe they have been 

retaliated against or treated unfavorably because they questioned or 

proposed changes to policies or procedures, questioned decisions 

of management, or requested leave, schedule adjustments, or light 

duty. The most common reason respondents cited for unfavorable 

treatment were questioning decisions, policies, or procedures 

(20%). Ten percent of respondents selected proposing changes to 

policies and procedures and requesting annual leave as reasons for 

the unfavorable treatment. The three most common forms of 

perceived unfavorable treatment were “other” (46%), “conduct that 

was unprofessional” (40%), and “a personnel action” (29%). 

Incidents of Perceived Retaliation and Unfavorable Treatment Are 

Recent and Believed To Be Perpetrated by Managers 

Approximately 75% of the respondents who believe they have 

been retaliated against or unfavorably treated feel the incidents 

occurred since February 2009. More than two-thirds (68%) of the 

respondents believe a senior manager in their office is responsible 

for the retaliation or unfavorable treatment. Additionally, 56% 

believe their immediate supervisor is responsible, and 20% believe 

a manager outside of their office is responsible.17 

16 See survey question 58 in appendix F. Totals for this question add up to more than 100% because more 


than one option could be selected.


17 Totals for this question could equal more than 100% because respondents could select more than one
 

answer.
 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 55 
Perceptions of Favoritism in Personnel Decisions Are 

Widespread 

The belief that personnel decisions are not based on merit or 

involve favoritism is present throughout all levels of the 

workforce. Non-managers, specifically employees in pay bands D 

through I, believe favoritism exists at a significantly higher rate 

than managers do. However, 30% of first-line managers in the 

J band and 17% of managers in pay bands K, L, and Transportation 

Senior Executive Service (TSES) believe favoritism is tolerated 

(see figure 8). When we asked whether favoritism, in general, is 

tolerated, 55% responded that they believe it is tolerated. An 

analysis of responses shows managers believe favoritism is 

tolerated at a lower rate than non-managers. 

Figure 8: Personal favoritism is not tolerated 

in my workplace, by pay band. 

Positive Neutral Negative

All Respondents

Pay bands K, L, TSES

Pay band J

Pay bands D-I 18

43

70

22

20

24

12

20

59

30

17

55

Perceptions of favoritism are most prevalent regarding raises, 

awards, and promotions. Perceptions that favoritism exists in 

performance ratings and work assignments are also elevated. 

Earlier we discussed problems in these areas that have likely 

contributed to perceptions of possible favoritism. These may not 

be the only causes, but FAMS can mitigate them by increasing 

transparency. 

A majority of respondents (61%) believe personal favoritism is a 

factor in the promotion process (see figure 9). Although managers 

believe personal favoritism is a factor in the promotion process at a 

lower rate than do non-managers, more immediate managers than 

not see favoritism in the promotion process. Additionally, 27% of 

senior managers indicated that favoritism is a factor in the 

promotion process. 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 56 
Figure 9: Personal favoritism is not a factor 

in the promotion process, by pay band. 

12

27

56

15

18

25

14

19

64

44

27

61

Pay bands D-I

Pay band J

Pay bands K, L, and TSES

All Respondents

Positive Neutral Negative

A majority of respondents believe in-position increases are not 

based on merit (56%) (see figure 10) and that personal favoritism 

is a factor when awarding these raises (54%) (see figure 11). 

Fewer managers than non-managers believe in-position increases 

are not based on merit. The survey revealed that 21% of senior 

managers and 37% of intermediate managers believe favoritism is 

a factor in in-position increases. 

Figure 10: In-position increases are based on merit, 

by pay band. 

Positive Neutral Negative

All Respondents

Pay bands K, L, and TSES

Pay band J

Pay bands D-I 19

35

67

22

17

25

11

17

59

37

21

56

Figure 11: Personal favoritism is not a factor when 

awarding in-position increases, by pay band. 

Positive Neutral Negative

All Respondents

Pay bands K, L, and TSES

Pay band J

Pay bands D-I 20

39

67

23

17

24

11

17

58

31

18

54

Almost half of all respondents (47%) believe cash and time-off 

awards are not based on merit (see figure 12) and personal 

favoritism is a factor when awarding cash and time off (see figure 

13). Fewer managers than non-managers believe cash and time-off 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 57 
awards are not based on merit. The survey revealed that 21% of 

senior managers and 29% of immediate managers believe that cash 

and time-off awards are not based on merit. 

Figure 12: Cash and time-off awards are based on merit,

by pay band.

Positive Neutral Negative

All Respondents

Pay bands K, L, and TSES

Pay band J

Pay bands D-I 22

41

69

26

21

25

9

21

50

29

21

47

Figure 13: Personal favoritism is not a factor when awarding 

cash and time off, by pay band.

Positive Neutral Negative

All Respondents

Pay bands K, L, and TSES

Pay band J

Pay bands D-I 21

41

66

25

21

24

12

21

50

28

18

47

Perceptions of favoritism in performance ratings and work 

assignments are mixed. Almost half of all respondents (48%) 

believe their supervisors do not consider personal favoritism when 

rating them. Employees’ perception of favoritism in ratings differs 

depending on their pay band, but more respondents agree that 

favoritism is not a factor their supervisor considers when rating 

them (see figure 14). Although the majority of managers believe 

favoritism is not a factor when rating employees, 33% of nonmanagers think it is. 

Figure 14: Personal favoritism is not a factor my 

supervisor considers when rating me, by pay band. 

46

60

80

48

18

16

7

17

33

20

13

31

Pay bands D-I

Pay band J

Pay bands K, L, and TSES

All Respondents

Positive Neutral Negative

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 58 
Thirty-one percent of respondents believe employees selected for 

ground-based assignments meet the stated criteria. Twenty-four 

percent believe employees selected for ground-based assignments 

do not meet the stated criteria. Forty-four percent of respondents 

believe personal favoritism is considered when ground-based 

assignments are selected. Twenty percent believe personal 

favoritism is not considered when ground-based assignments are 

selected (see figure 15). 

Figure 15: Personal favoritism is not considered when 

ground-based assignments are selected, by pay band. 

16

37

57

20

21

21

12

21

47

23

9

44

Pay bands D-I

Pay band J

Pay bands K, L, and TSES

All Respondents

Positive Neutral Negative

Thirty-seven percent of respondents believe personal favoritism is 

not a factor when international missions are assigned. Twentynine percent believe personal favoritism is a factor when 

international missions are assigned (see figure 16). 

Figure 16: Personal favoritism is not considered when 

international missions are assigned, by pay band. 

Positive Neutral Negative

All Respondents

Pay bands K, L, and TSES

Pay band J

Pay bands D-I 32

54

58

37

21

18

10

13

32

7

7

29

Fear of Retaliation and Discrimination Reduce the Likelihood 

That Employees Will Report Misconduct or Illegal Activity 

More than two-thirds of respondents (72%) indicated that they 

would report misconduct or illegal activity to the appropriate 

FAMS officials. More than three-quarters of respondents (84%) 

who do not believe they have been retaliated against or 

discriminated against would report misconduct or illegal activity to 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 59 
 

FAMS. However, a much smaller percentage of respondents who 

feel they have been retaliated or discriminated against (55%) 

would report misconduct or illegal activity to FAMS. Managers 

are more likely to report misconduct or illegal activity (83%) than 

non-managers (71%). There is little difference between races and 

genders when it comes to the likelihood of reporting misconduct or 

illegal activity. 

Employees are supposed to make complaints or discuss concerns 

with their supervisors and managers. According to FAMS, the 

immediate supervisor is the employee’s primary contact for 

workplace concerns or conflicts. But it is the responsibility of 

managers to maintain an environment where employees trust 

supervisors and feel free to raise issues without fear of reprisal. 

If an employee does not express complaints or concerns to a 

supervisor or manager, the employee has several other options for 

making the complaint or concern known. Those options include 

contacting TSA’s Office of the Ombudsman, Office for Civil 

Rights and Liberties, or Office of Inspections, the DHS Office of 

Inspector General, or the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. FAMS 

has also provided avenues for its employees to raise concerns, 

including field office focus groups and anonymous emails to the 

FAMS Director. FAMS makes employees aware of these outlets 

for registering complaints or raising concerns when they join the 

organization, and through periodic training and email 

announcements. 

Despite available avenues, our survey showed that 47% of 

respondents do not think they can disclose a suspected violation of 

law, rule, or regulation without fear of retaliation. These 

respondents are less likely to report misconduct or illegal activity 

than those who do not fear retaliation. Ninety-seven percent of 

respondents who believe they can disclose violations without fear 

of retaliation would report misconduct or illegal activity to FAMS. 

Fewer respondents (54%) who believe they cannot disclose 

violations without retaliation would report misconduct or illegal 

activity to FAMS. 

Fourteen percent of respondents took no action in response to 

perceived discrimination, retaliation, or unfair treatment, because 

they feared retaliation or further retaliation.18 On average, only 10% 

18 This is the total number of respondents who answered “Fear of retaliation” or “Fear of further retaliation” 

for questions 56, 65, and 73, represented as a percentage of all respondents. 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 60 
of respondents who did attempt to resolve the problem of retaliation 

or unfavorable treatment felt their actions were effective.19 

Perceptions of Policies and Procedures for Addressing 

Complaints and Disputes Are Mixed 

Forty-six percent of respondents believe appropriate policies or 

procedures exist to address complaints and disputes. Nonmanagers are evenly split, with 38% who believe appropriate 

policies or procedures exist and 38% who believe they do not exist. 

Two-thirds of first-line managers (66%) believe appropriate 

policies or procedures exist. More than three-quarters of senior 

managers (82%) believe appropriate policies or procedures exist. 

Only 18% of respondents who do not think they can disclose a 

suspected violation of law, rule, or regulation without fear of 

retaliation believe there are appropriate policies and procedures for 

addressing complaints and disputes. This is a lower percentage 

than respondents who believe they can disclose a suspected 

violation of law, rule, or regulation without fear of retaliation. 

More than half of respondents (56%) trust their supervisor to 

respond appropriately to reported misconduct, complaints, or 

disputes. However, on average, fewer than one-third of 

respondents who believe they have been discriminated or retaliated 

against notified their immediate supervisor.20 This difference may 

be due to the belief among 66% of these respondents that a senior 

manager in their office is responsible and 52% of these 

respondents that their immediate supervisor is responsible for the 

perceived discrimination or retaliation.21 Respondents who do not 

think they can disclose a suspected violation of law, rule, or 

regulation without fear of retaliation (47%) are less likely to trust 

their supervisor. 

Discipline Is Perceived as Unfair, Inconsistent, and Not at the 

Appropriate Level of Severity 

The majority of respondents believe discipline is unfair (see 

figure 17) and inconsistent (see figure 18), and almost half believe 

discipline is not at the appropriate level of severity (see figure 19). 

Non-managers are more likely to have these perceptions, but a 

considerable number of managers do as well. TSA is restructuring 

19 This is an average of “No” responses for questions 55, 64, and 72. 
 20 This is an average of responses to survey questions 54, 63, and 70. 
 21 These are an average of responses to survey questions 51, 60, and 68. Respondents could select more 


than one option.
 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 61 
how it administers discipline across the agency. The new process 

is a positive development that will address some of these concerns. 

The 41% of respondents who believe they have been discriminated 

or retaliated against or treated unfavorably have a far more 

negative view of the discipline process within FAMS. They are 

much more likely to believe managers are not held accountable for 

misconduct or illegal activity and that the discipline process is 

unfair, inconsistent, and not at the appropriate level of severity. 

Figure 17: The discipline process is fair, by pay band. 

14

37

58

18

21

24

15

21

56

32

21

53

Pay bands D-I

Pay band J

Pay bands K, L, and TSES

All Respondents

Positive Neutral Negative

Figure 18: Disciplinary actions are applied consistently 

for similar offenses, by pay band. 

Positive Neutral Negative

All Respondents

Pay bands K, L, and TSES

Pay band J

Pay bands D-I 11

33

50

15

16

18

17

16

60

34

20

57

Figure 19: Disciplinary actions are at the appropriate 

level of severity given the offense, by pay band. 

Positive Neutral Negative

12

32

53

16

24

25

20

23

51

32

18

49

Pay bands D-I

Pay band J

Pay bands K, L, and TSES

All Respondents

Fifty-two percent of respondents believe senior managers are not 

held accountable if they engage in misconduct or illegal activity. 

Additionally, 40% of respondents believe law enforcement 

supervisors are not held accountable. This is a much lower 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 62 
percentage than the 76% of respondents who believe Federal Air 

Marshals are held accountable. 

Job Satisfaction 

Our survey incorporated job satisfaction questions similar to those 

in the 2010 DHS Viewpoint Survey.22 Measuring job satisfaction 

is important because it allows organizations to focus on employee 

perceptions that ultimately drive productivity. Comparing rates of 

job satisfaction across demographic characteristics such as race 

and gender can also be informative because it allows organizations 

to examine whether job experiences may be different for certain 

groups of people. Even further, comparing the experiences and 

perceptions of whites and nonwhites is a popular approach that can 

yield informative results. 

According to our survey, 53% of respondents reported that they 

were very satisfied or satisfied with their job, compared with 68% 

of respondents to the same question on the 2010 DHS Viewpoint 

Survey. Additionally, 23% of our survey respondents expressed 

that they were very satisfied or satisfied with their opportunity to 

get a better job in the organization compared with 40% of DHS 

respondents to the same question. 

All groups reported similar levels of overall job satisfaction, 

considering everything. However, notable percentages of 

American Indian/Alaska Natives, Hispanics, African-Americans, 

and females responded less favorably to specific questions related 

to job satisfaction. For example, our survey results indicated— 

Thirty-five percent of Hispanics, compared with 43% of all 

respondents and 44% of white respondents, agreed or 

strongly agreed that they are given an opportunity to 

improve their skills in the organization; 

Twenty-seven percent of Hispanics, compared with 36% of 

all respondents and 37% of white respondents, feel 

encouraged to come up with new and better ways of doing 

things;

Thirty-one percent of African-Americans and 31% of 

Hispanics believe their talents are used well in the 

workplace, compared with 39% of all respondents and 

41% of white respondents; and 

22 The survey results in our report are unweighted and represent only FAMS employees who completed 

surveys. As a result, data may be biased because some subgroups of the survey population could be underor overrepresented. Unweighted survey findings that compare subgroups should not be generalized. 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 63
Sixty-seven percent of females agreed or strongly agreed 

that the people they work with cooperate to get the job 

done, compared with 75% of all respondents. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the TSA Administrator: 

Recommendation #12: Create and implement an action plan to 

address workplace issues identified in our survey. The plan should 

include training for supervisors on communication and conflict 

management that is tailored to the unique Federal Air Marshal 

Service mission. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

Management Comments to Recommendation #12 

TSA concurred with this recommendation. The FAMS Director’s 

Office is creating an action plan to address issues identified in the 

OIG survey and will provide a copy to us upon completion. The 

plan will include information about the SFAM Leadership 

Initiative, of which FAMS recently completed a pilot session. 

OIG Analysis

We concur with TSA’s response. The plan should include 

management’s strategy for addressing perceptions of discrimination,

retaliation, and favoritism, as well as strengthening the current 

workplace environment, communication, diversity, reporting and 

addressing misconduct, and job satisfaction. We will close this 

recommendation pending receipt and review of TSA’s action plan. 

This recommendation is Resolved – Open. 

FAMS Leadership Is Addressing Workforce Issues 

FAMS senior leadership has implemented various initiatives to address 

workforce issues, deter misconduct and illegal discrimination and 

retaliation, and respond to complaints, investigations, and adjudications. 

Those initiatives include the creation of the SAC Advisory Council, 

FAMS Advisory Council, J-Band Working Group, and Succession 

Planning Working Groups. In addition, all-hands meetings were held to 

discuss and identify workplace issues, develop recommended courses of 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 64
action, and designate committees to plan for implementation of the agreed 

course of action based on operational requirements. These initiatives have 

provided useful forums for increasing communication and collaboration 

between senior leadership and the workforce, particularly the field offices, 

and addressing workplace issues. 

As a result of the continued allegations of retaliation and discrimination in

the Orlando field office and elsewhere, the FAMS Director visited several

field offices to meet with employees. In August 2010, in an unprecedented

move, the Director temporarily suspended operational activity at the

Orlando and Tampa field offices to conduct a mandatory meeting for all

FAMS employees assigned to those offices. The purpose of the meeting 

was to speak candidly with staff and to restore trust. 

Senior management has sought to build a culture of accountability. 

According to the Director, this culture is expected at all levels of the 

organization, from senior management to Federal Air Marshals and 

support personnel. People at every level must be accountable to their 

colleagues, agency, fellow law enforcement and industry partners, 

families, and Nation. It is an expectation that pertains not only to what 

they must do to improve the organization but also what they should do for 

the organization and for each other. 

The FAMS Advisory Council enhances communications and outreach 

efforts, promotes greater job satisfaction, and improves organizational 

effectiveness. Senior leadership also implemented additional processes 

and initiatives to address workforce issues. At the first FAMS Advisory 

Council meeting in September 2009, the Director challenged council 

members to identify how to cultivate and sustain a professional code of 

conduct and esprit de corps that would be inherent in their culture of 

accountability. As a result, the council identified continuous peer-to-peer 

and employee-to-supervisory communications as a top practice, with 

professional competence and personal responsibility having the most 

impact on job performance, personal advancement, and agency success. 

To promote a common culture within FAMS and address the “us versus 

them” perceptions, the Director accepted and implemented the FAMS

Advisory Council’s recommendation to change the titles of first-line

supervisors. He removed the term Special Agent from FAMS terminology,

and in January 2011 he announced the following title changes:

Assistant to the Special Agent in Charge is now Supervisory 

Federal Air Marshal. 

Assistant Special Agent in Charge is now Assistant Supervisory 

Air Marshal in Charge. 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 65
Deputy Special Agent in Charge is now Deputy Supervisory Air 

Marshal in Charge. 

Special Agent in Charge is now Supervisory Air Marshal in Charge.

Senior FAMS titles of Deputy Assistant Director, Assistant 

Director, Deputy Director, and Director are unchanged. 

In limited conversations, we noted that reaction to the title changes has 

been positive. 

In 2010, FAMS executive staff created the Succession Planning Working 

Group to address and recommend the initial steps to implement succession 

planning within FAMS. The Succession Planning Working Group held its 

first meeting in November 2010 and reviewed 10 succession plans of law 

enforcement entities from federal, state, local, civilian, and private sectors. 

The group made six recommendations to senior leadership, including 

creating a Leadership Development Program while focusing on 

organizational operations, strategic direction, leadership, and professional 

development for all employees; providing personnel opportunities through 

temporary developmental assignments; and establishing career paths for 

Federal Air Marshals and mission support personnel so that the employees 

can determine which career path coincides with their background and 

work experiences. At the time of our report, senior leadership was 

considering the group’s recommendations. Implementing these 

recommendations would assist personnel in directing the course of their 

careers. 

On February 11, 2011, the Director met with all headquarters personnel to 

discuss changing the cultural mindset at all levels of the organization from 

one of a top-down management structure to one of solving problems for 

Federal Air Marshals who protect flights worldwide every day. 

Senior management believes some personnel have interpreted the culture 

of accountability as a “gotcha” mentality, in which managers should

discipline rigidly to achieve compliance. Although employees who are

involved in misconduct will be disciplined, the Director expects personnel

at all levels to practice leadership and where appropriate develop their staff

to grow with the organization. The culture of accountability is a “help you”

mentality in which accountability and leadership go hand in hand. 

The Director intends to deliver this message during field office visits 

throughout the year and is developing a leadership initiative in which all 

supervisors will participate. The leadership initiative will permit all 

supervisors to pause and reflect upon their leadership style while learning 

about resilient leadership and critical incident awareness. The training 

will conclude with a case study workshop designed to identify, through 

open dialogue with peers, possible solutions to a set of scenarios that 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 66
supervisors may encounter concerning other employees. During the 

initiative, each SFAM will also have the opportunity to meet with the 

Director or Deputy Director to discuss expectations for leading the FAMS 

workforce. 

In 2011, FAMS, in partnership with TSA’s Office of Civil Rights and 

Liberties, established collateral duty assignments for Federal Air Marshals 

to serve as liaisons between FAMS field offices and the TSA EEO program. 

The liaison role was created to facilitate the flow of information between 

FAMS employees and EEO program staff regarding the informal and 

formal complaint processes. In addition, liaisons provide referrals to EEO 

staff at TSA headquarters and assist with accessing information about 

EEO and diversity training. Liaisons were selected for each FAMS field 

office, and they participated in 3 days of training in June 2011. 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 67 
Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

We reviewed allegations of widespread misconduct and illegal 

discrimination and retaliation in FAMS. In January 2010, Senator 

Nelson asked that we review allegations of illegal discrimination 

and retaliation in the Orlando, Florida, FAMS field office and the 

extent to which those alleged conditions existed nationwide. In 

February 2010, Representative Towns asked that we review the 

creation and use of an offensive training tool. In July 2010, 

Representative Issa asked that we review the use of an offensive 

assignment board and how FAMS and TSA handled the matter. 

Our objectives were to determine whether (1) the facts confirm 

specific allegations of misconduct and illegal discrimination and 

retaliation in Orlando; (2) the TSA Office of Inspections provided 

objective, complete investigations of the allegations in Orlando; 

(3) FAMS management responded appropriately to the allegations 

in Orlando; (4) misconduct and illegal discrimination and 

retaliation are widespread in FAMS; and (5) FAMS has established 

effective processes for deterring misconduct and illegal 

discrimination and retaliation and for responding to complaints, 

investigations, and adjudications. 

We reviewed applicable laws, regulations, and directives regarding 

EEO and the various complaint processes. We also reviewed 

demographics, conduct and performance information, and TSA 

and FAMS standards, policies, and procedures. In addition, we 

reviewed TSA OOI investigation and inspection reports and 

discussed their results with TSA OOI officials. 

We conducted more than 300 interviews of officials within DHS, 

TSA and FAMS headquarters, the EEOC, the MSPB, and current 

and former FAMS personnel from various field offices. TSA and 

FAMS senior leadership cooperated and consulted with us 

throughout the review. We conducted site visits to the FAMS 

Orlando and Tampa, Cincinnati, Minneapolis, Charlotte, and 

Dallas field offices. During our site visits, we obtained or 

reviewed employee, operational, and discipline records. 

Additionally, individual Federal Air Marshals provided us with a 

variety of documents. The majority of Federal Air Marshals we 

interviewed in field offices asked to be interviewed. We requested 

and conducted interviews with all supervisors and managers in 

each of the five field offices. Of the more than 300 interviews, 23 

were telephone interviews with FAMS personnel from the 

following field offices: Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, 

New York, Reston, and Washington, DC. 

We selected FYs 2006 to 2010 for purposes of analyzing discipline 

data, court decisions, and other records. We did not investigate 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 68 
Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

any ongoing cases or complaints; however, we did refer numerous 

inquiries to the OIG Hotline. 

From February to April 2011, we conducted a confidential survey 

of the FAMS workforce to measure employees’ perceptions of 

discrimination, retaliation, and favoritism. The survey was 

administered electronically over a 36-day period. We consulted 

DHS’ CRCL and FAMS on our survey questions before launching 

the survey. The survey results in our report are unweighted and 

represent only FAMS employees who completed surveys. 

Unweighted data may be biased because some subgroups of the 

survey population are under- or overrepresented. Unweighted 

survey findings that compare subgroups cannot be generalized to 

the survey population. 

We began our fieldwork in May 2010 and ended it in April 2011. 

This review was conducted under the authority of the Inspector 

General Act of 1978, as amended, and according to the Quality 

Standards for Inspections issued by the President’s Council on 

Integrity and Efficiency. 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 69 
Appendix B 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the TSA Administrator: 

Recommendation #1: Identify other means to obtain information 

on Federal Air Marshals’ performance that could assist supervisors 

when preparing evaluations. 

Recommendation #2 (Revised): Provide guidance regarding the 

types of incidents the Federal Air Marshal Service should and 

should not report to the Office of Inspection in an incident tracking 

report. 

Recommendation #3: Provide additional guidance and 

clarification regarding employee ineligibility for favorable 

personnel actions when there is a pending disciplinary matter that 

spans performance cycles, including when the period of 

ineligibility begins and ends. The guidance should be 

disseminated to all Federal Air Marshal Service personnel. 

Recommendation #4: In consultation with the Director of the 

Federal Air Marshal Service, the Assistant Administrator of the 

Office of Professional Responsibility, and the Assistant 

Administrator of the Office of Human Capital, provide guidance 

and clarification regarding how long prior corrective or discipline 

actions should be considered and for which types of incidents. 

Current training to supervisors and the workforce concerning 

conduct should be assessed and additional training provided as 

necessary. 

Recommendation #5: Develop a comprehensive system to track 

all stages of the discipline process. 

Recommendation #6: Establish additional guidelines that set 

forth selection criteria for Federal Air Marshal ground-based 

positions. 

Recommendation #7: Provide additional guidance and 

clarification for awards and in-position increases, including 

whether they can be rotated among staff and given to the same 

employee in back-to-back years, and to what extent managers 

should consider discipline issues. 

Recommendation #8: Evaluate whether the Federal Air Marshal 

Service should remove specific limits on the number of Senior 

Federal Air Marshals allowed in each office and establish 

eligibility criteria for designation as a Senior Federal Air Marshal 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 70 
Appendix B 

Recommendations 

based on specific mission and length-of-service achievements, in 

addition to the performance requirements already in place. 

Recommendation #9: Communicate specific application criteria 

to all J-band promotion applicants at the beginning of each 

promotion cycle. 

Recommendation #10: Review evaluation and assessment 

procedures for the J-band promotion process and revise as 

necessary to ensure that certification lists contain the best qualified 

candidates. 

Recommendation #11: Develop guidelines to define when 

Federal Air Marshals can be removed from international flight 

schedules, including what performance and conduct issues can 

cause a Federal Air Marshal to be removed and the duration of the 

restriction. 

Recommendation #12: Create and implement an action plan to 

address workplace issues identified in our survey. The plan should 

include training for supervisors on communication and conflict 

management that is tailored to the unique Federal Air Marshal 

Service mission. 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 71 
Appendix C 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

u.s. Dtplrtmtnt or Homtl.nd Stturlty 

601 South 12th SlTeel 

.... lhJl&tOll,VA 20598 

Transportation 

Security 

Administration 

NOV 29 201\ 

INFORMATION 

MEMORANDUM FOR: Charles Edwards 

Acting Inspector General 

U,S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

FROM: hIlS 

SUBJECT: 

(ff" .. PiSlOI.di.tJ. A7.~/ dmlnlstrat~ I 

Response to Draft Report, Allegations of Misconduct ami 

JIlega/ Discrimination and Retaliation ill the Federal Air 

Marshal Service, August 2011 

This memorandum constitutes the Transpol1ation Security Administration's (TSA's) response to 

the DHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG) draft report, AI/ega/ions of Misco"duct and 

Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service, dated August 2011. 

Background: 

In March 2010, OIG initiated a review of all egations of widespread misconduct and illegal 

discrimination and retal iation in the Office of Law Enforcement/Federal Air Marshal Service 

(OLEIF AMS). The review began after allegations were made regarding the F AL'Y1S Orlando 

Field Office. The review was requested by Senator Bill Nelson and Congressmen Edolphus 

Towns and Darrellissa. 

As noted by the QIG in their report, TSA and F AMS leadership closely cooperated with the OIG 

during the course of this extensive review. During this review, the OIG visited five F AMS Field 

Offices; interviewed more than 300 DHS, TSA and FAMS officials; and conducted a survey of 

the FAMS workforce, which waS administered electronicall y over a 36 day period and in which 

approximately SO percent of the F AMS workforce participated. 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 72 
Appendix C 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

2 

The DIG's draft report concludes that their review did not support a finding of widespread 

discrimination or retaliation in the FAMS. However, the draft report did stale that employees' 

perceptions of discrimination and retaliation are extensive. 

The draft report issued by OIG identified 12 recommendations for TSA. The recommendations 

include formalizing in writing or clarifying policies or guidance in a variety of topics related to 

human capital, work assignments. discipline processes, and awards. The recommendations also 

include FAMS creating an action plan to address workplace issues identified in the DIG's 

work force survey_ 

Discussion: 

TSA greatly appreciates the work done by OIG during the course of this review and intends to 

use this valuable infonnation to assist our efforts to continue to improve TSA and the F AMS. 

While DIG found no evidence of widespread retaliation or discrimination in FAMS, we 

understand the importance of OIG's additional findings that employees' perceptions of 

discrimination and retaliation are extensive and that limited transparency in management 

decisions and poor communication arc at the center of these perceptions. 

The FAMS is the Office of Law Enforcement within TSA and is a critical layer ofTSA's 

security for the Nation's transportation systems. It is therefore important to note OIG's finding 

that the F AMS' mission perfonnance was found to not be adversely affected. 

As OIG notes in their report, F AMS has experienced many organizational challenges since 9/11 , 

including being built up at an incredibly fast rate to meet the Nations' security challenges, 

merging the culture of many different law enforcement and security agencies, and migrating 

between three different parent organizations. 

OIG's report notes that the vast majority of cases filed involving the F AMS have been decided in 

the Agency's favor. Since 2005 (when F AMS returned to TSA from U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement) less than 3 percent of the discrimination cases brought before the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission, to date, have resulted in a finding of discrimination. 

Furthemlore. as is noted in the report, since 2005 more than 94 percent of Merit Systcms 

Protection Board appeals involving FAMS have been decided in the Agency's favor. Also, 

noted in the OIG report, since 2005 there has not been a single finding of discrimination against 

FAI\1S or TSA in a Federal district coun case involving FAMS. 

The OIG notes that FAMS and TSA senior leadership have implemented numerous proactive 

measures to work on addressing Ihe issues raised in the report 

Most notably, the Director of the F AMS has implemented a Culture of Accountability within the 

FAMS. The Culture of Accountability at F AMS requires that all F AMS employees be 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 73 
Appendix C 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

3 

accountable to the mission, the Agency, fellow law enforcement and industry panners, their 

families and the Nation. As the OIG notes in their report, the Culture of Accountability outli nes 

what FAMS employees are obligated to do to both improve the organization as well as how they 

should treat each othe r. 

Other proactive measures taken by FAMS and TSA, man y of which were noted by 01G in their 

report, include: 

• FAMS/Office of Civil Rights and Liberties (OCRL) Equal Employment Opportunity 

(EEO) Points of Contact (POCs)-F AMS. in partnership with TSA OCRL, has established 

collate ral duty assignments to serve as liaisons between FAMS Field Offices and the 

TSA OCRL Program. The purpose of this new assignment is to assist with the easy flow 

of information between F AMS employees and the OCRL staff. F AMS/OCRL EEO 

POCs are now established in each F AMS Field Office. 

• Supervisory Federal Air Marshal (SFAM) Leadership Initiativc--FAMS has recently 

completed a pilot session of the SFAM Leadership Initiative for new FAMS supervisors. 

This initiative requires each SF AM to participate in training at OLfIF AMS Headquarters. 

The training emphasizes the importance of communication, relationship-building, and 

support of personnel to continue the transformation of the OLFJFAMS culture. 

Discussions during the initiative emphasize the welfare of employees and focuses on 

mission performance in an environment of resilient leadership. 

• OLFJFAMS Advisory Council- The OLEIFAMS Advisory Council provides the 

opportunity for sustained engagement with the OLFlF AMS workforce and provides 

OLflF AMS personnel a structured forum to identify issues, communicate key topics to 

OLEIF AMS Senior Leadership, and identify recommendations for action that impact 

service-wide operations. The OLEIFAMS Advisory Council is composed of nonsupervisory Federal Air Marshals (F AMs) and non-supervisory Mission Support 

Personnel from throughout the OLEIF AMS workforce. 

• OLEIF AMS Listening Sessions- The FAMS Director hosts several listening sessions per 

year for SFAMs and FAMs from fi eld offices throughout the country. Attendees travel to 

OLF.JF AMS Headquarters and are encouraged to ask questions and present issues to 

subject matter ex.perts at each listening session. The listening sessions promote the direct 

exchange o f information and resolution of issues arising in the field. The Director and 

Deputy Director also hold quarterly sessions with a group of F AMs to discuss issues in a 

less fomlal offsite envi ronment to enhance communication and outreach efforts with 

mission night status F AMs. 

• OLFIFAMS Work ing Groups-8ince April 2006, OLE/FAMS has conducted a number of 

assessments focused on various program areas through the formation of working groups. 

These working groups are structured to review a specific program area or issue. They 

develop recommendations to enhance Agency operations and the quality of life for 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 74 
Appendix C 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

4 

OLEIFAMS personnel. The working groups have included OLE/F AMS personnel 

representing all levels of the workforce. 

• Senior Executive Personnel Field Office Visits- There is a new struc tured effort to 

coordinate OLEIFAMS senior executives' visits to FAMS Field Offices. Senior 

executive personnel have visited a numberofOLEIFAMS Field Offices during the past 

year. During the Field Office visits, the senior executives meet with the Field Office 

non-supervisory and management personnel 10 discuss current issues and exchange 

infomlation. 

• OCRUSupervisory Air Marshals in Charge (SAC) Conference- A 3 day SAC and 

executive level (Assistant DirectorsIDeputy Assistant Directors) conference, coordinated 

with TSA OeRL, devoted exclusively to discussion/training around EEO and diversity 

issues. As a result of Ihe conference, all Field Offi ce SACs are req uired to develop and 

implement an EEOfDiversity Action Plan for their offtces. 

Furthermore, as is also noted in the repon, FAMS has made a number of significant leadership 

. reassignments to mai ntain consistency with the new Culture of Accountability. In addition, TSA 

believes that the new discipline process for FAMS and TSA, most notably the creation of the 

new Office of Professional Responsibility. will creatc far greater transparency and consistency 

for the FAMS discipline process. 

TSA intends to continue to vigorously pursue these proactive measures to address workforce 

issucs identifi ed by the OIG in this report. TSA and F AMS will also work closely with the OIG 

to implement the important recommendations made in this report. TSA believes these actions 

will create better communi cation and will improve the understanding and implementation of 

policies set fonh by TSA. tn addition, TSA is reviewing the OIG survey and plans to funher 

address the topics and concerns that it raises. 

For additional and specific comments regardi ng the report, please see TSA's response to the OIG 

recommendations that follows. 

Conclusion: 

FAMS and TSA recognize the imponant issues set forth in this report and are committed to 

working to resolve these issues. The unprecedented level of cooperation between OIG and TSA 

and FAMS leadership has made this review especially productive. 

TSA has already begun to fannulate plans to implement the recommendations contained in the 

report. Our specific response to each recommendation follows. 

Attachment 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 75 
Appendix C 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

T ransportatio n Security Administration (TSA) 

Response to Office of the Inspecto r Genera l (OIG) Draft Report, 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrinrinaiion and 

Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal S ervice 

Recommendation 1: Identify other means to obtain information on Feder al Air Marshals' 

performance that could assist supervisors when pr eparing evalu atio ns. 

TSA concurs. OIG acknowledges the un ique nature of the Office of Law EnforcementlFederal 

Air Marshal Service (OLEIF AMS) mission. The challenges in supervising and managing a 

largely mobile workforce are simi larly unique. 

We believe it would be benefi cial to OLEfFAMS ifan independent entity were able to assess this 

issue and make recommendations concerning its resolut ion. Therefore, TSA and FAMS are in 

the process of identifying an independent entity to conduct a review of this issue and make 

necessary recommendations. This action is contingent upon obtaining adequate funding. 

OLFlFAMS will notify the 0 1G of its progress in identifying an independent entity and will 

provide regul ar updates on iI's progress. 

Recommendation 2: 'Provide guidance rega rding the types of incidents the Federal Air 

Marsha l Sen-ice should and should not report to tbe Office of Inspectio n in an incident 

tracking report, the types of incidents tbe O ffice of Inspection can delegate to the Federal 

Air Marshal Sen-icc for investiga tion, a nd the Office of Professional Responsibility's 

C?versight responsibility for disc iplinary actions ta ken aga inst Federa l Air Marshals. 

TSA concurs. TSA has promulgated new policies providing that all allegations of misconduct 

involvi ng Federal Air Marshals will be investigat ed by the Office of Inspection (001) and 

adj udicated by the Offi ce of Professional Responsibility (OPR). This is set fOl1h in TSA 

Management Directive (M D) 11 00.75-7, Office of Professional Responsibility. and will ensure 

independence in the investigation and adjudication process. 

Accordi ngly. we suggest that the currenl dra n Recommendation be revised to read: "Provide 

guidance regard ing the types of incidents the Federal Air Marshal Service should and should nOl 

report to the Office of Inspection in an incident tracking repon:' 

Recommendation 3: Provide add itional guidance and clarification regarding employee 

incllgibilit), for favo rable personnel actions when there is a pending diSciplina ry matter 

tb at spans performance cycles, including when the period of ineligibility begins and ends. 

The guidance should be disseminated to aU Federal Air Marsha l Senoice personnel. 

TSA concurs. OLE/FAMS and the TSA Office of Human Capital (OHC) are working together 

to address these issues. Guidance will be developed to streamline the use and interpretation of 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 76 
Appendix C 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

2 

TSA MD 1100.53-8 Selling Pay After Appointment, pinpointing any needs specific to the FAMS. 

More detailed guidance will be issued to supervisors in particular, and clarification will be 

provided to the staff as well. 

White guidance and clarification can and will be provided, defin itive timelines cannot be given 

regarding employee ineligibility for favorable personnel actions when there is a pending 

disciplinary matter because it limits supervisors' ability 10 manage issues on a case-by-casc 

basis. 

Recommendation 4: In consultation with the Director of tbe Federal Air Man bal Service, 

the Assistant Administrator of tb e Office of Professional Responsibility, and the Assistant 

Administr ator of t he Offi ce of Human Capita l. p rovide guid ance and cl a rification 

rega rd ing how long prior orr iye or discipline actions should b e consider ed and for 

which typ es of incidents. Cu rrent training to supervisors and the workforce concerning 

conduct should be assessed a nd additiona l training provided as necessary. 

TSA concu rs. Based on discussions with OIG representatives, the underlying concern for this 

recommendation relates to the retention and continued use of Letters of Counseling andlor 

Letters of Warning. Letters of Counseling are considered corrective, not disciplinary, action and 

depending on the particular infraction, management has the discretion to consider such actions in 

assessing future incidents of misconduct. Letters of Reprimand are the least sevcre fOlTTl of 

disciplinary action that may be issued to address unacceptable perfonnance or conduct, and are 

maintained for a limited time and purpose. 

OHC. OPR, and OLEJF AMS are working together to develop additional guidance and 

clarification to supervisors. Training materials and reminders on conduct will be assessed and 

issued. 

Recommendation 5 : Develop a compr ehensive system to trac k all stages of t he d iscipline 

process. 

TSA concurs. In April, 2011, TSA began a collaborative effort between the TSA OHC, OPR, 

001, and Chief Infonnation Office to c reate one common database to track all phases of the 

disciplinary process. An Integrated Project Team OPT) was created with representatives andlor 

subject matter experts from each of these offices. The IPT has met on a regular basis since April 

201 I, with thc majority of meetings occurring on a weekly basis. 

The Employee Relations Case Management Tracking system was designated to be the platfoml 

to expand and provide functionality for OPR and 001. Since OPR 's requirements were simi lar 

to the existing system, the functionality to enter and track OPR cases was an easy solution and 

was implemented in June 201 1. Since developing the OPR's initial requirements, which was 

done prior to receiving cases, additional funct ionality was identified and implemented in October 

201 1. 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 77 
Appendix C 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

3 

The majorityofthe focus of the IPT has been to understand 001'5 functional requirements and 

the process flow from each office. This is a more extensive cfCon and in September 2011, the 

functional requirements were approved. Throughout the remainder 0[20 II, the functionali ty for 

001 and process flow between these offices will be developed, tested, and implemented. 

Recommendation 6: Establish additional guidelines that set forth selection criteri a for 

Federal Air Marshal ground-based positio ns. 

TSA concurs. In March 2011, a guidance e-mail was scnt to all Field Office Supervisory Air 

Marshals in Charge (SACs) regarding the length of Ground Based Assignments (GBAs) and the 

granting of extensions for these assignments. All announcements for GBA assignments both at 

the national and local level include verbiage on how to apply. what core competencies are 

required and the length of time a F AM can occupy the assignment. 

Field Office SACs have been infonned to communicate with their workforce on how the 

selection process is structured, and to employ a panel of supervisors to review, intcrview, and 

rank the GSA candidates. Those not selected will be provided feedback in what way they can 

improve for possible future selections. 

The Field Office SAC has some discretion on the length ofGBAs for G, l-I and l-Band FAMs at 

Field Office; specifically in Operations, Training, Airpon Operations and Joint Terrorism Task 

Force positions. Generally, the length of the GSA assignment by new guidance should not 

exceed thirty-six consecutive months. However, individual assignment length may be subject to 

adjustment based on operationa l necessity. If a special circumstance requires a GSA assignment 

to be extended, a memorandum requesting the extension must be submitted to their Regional 

Deputy Assistant Director (DAD) for approval. 

A F AM who completed a 36 month assignment in one of the above GSA pOSitions shall not be 

eligible fo r another GSA until helshe has been on mission flight status for twelve consecutive 

months. 

In addition, on April 1, 2011, new guidance was set for the length of GSA Visible lntennodal 

Prevention and Response (VIPR) Program assignments at Field Offices. At the SACs' 

discretion, they may extend the assignment up to a maximum of one year. All of these noted 

guidance e-mails have previously been provided to the OIG. 

Although these guidance e-mails have previously been provided to F AMS Field Offices in 

regard to GBAs, OLEIFAMS is preparing additional consolidated guidelines setting fonh GSA 

selection criteria that will be provided to the Field Offices. 

Recommendation 7: Provide additional guidance aDd clarifi ca tion for awards and inposition increases, including whether they can be rotated among st aff a nd given to the same 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 78 
Appendix C 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

4 

employee in back-to-back years, and to what extent managers shou ld cons iller discipline 

issues. 

TSA concurs. OHC and F AMS are working together 10 address these issues. Guidance will be 

developed to clarify TSA MD 1100.45-1 . Awards ami RecognitiOn., and TSA MD 1100.53-8, 

Setti"g Pay After Appoimmelll, to especially focus on pinpointing any needs specific (0 the 

FAMS. 

Clarification will be given on awards and in-position increases explaining why nexibility is 

necessary 10 allow management to reward top performers on a regular basis. Guidance and 

clarification on existing policy will serve to mitigate issues surrounding the perception of 

favoritism, while still allowing management to usc their judgment and discretion concerning the 

granting of an appropriate award or in-position increase. Issues relating to the applicability of 

disciplinary actions will be discussed between OHC and OLEIFAMS to provide clarification to 

the workforce. 

Recommendation 8: Evaluate whether the Federal Air Marshal Service should remo\'e 

specific limits on the number of Senior Federal Air Marsbals allowed in each office and 

establish eligibility criteria for designation as a Senior Federal Air Marshal based on 

specific mission and length-of-service achievements, in add ilion 10 the performance 

requirements already in place. The Federal Air Marshal Service should clearly articulsle 

any new criteria 10 field offices. 

TSA concurs. The OLEfFAMS is examining the Senior Federal Air Marshal (Senior FAM) 

Program to detennine any changes that may be necessary. 

OLEIFAMS Senior Leadership believes that the Senior FAM Program has served a beneficial 

purpose recognizing many deserving Federal Air Marshals meeting the detcnnined mission and 

perfonnanee qualifications. However, OLEIFAMS Senior Leadership has tasked the 

Supervisory Air Marshal in Charge (SAC) Advisory Council and the OLEIF AMS Advisory 

Council to consider all facets of the Senior FAM Program in an effort to develop a program 

better suited for the development and recognition of Federal Air Marshals. 

An ad hoc committee made up ofrepresent3tives from the SAC and OLEIFAMS Advisory 

Councils will convenc in the coming months to discuss recommendations from each Council 

regarding the Senior FAM Program. All facets of the program will be considered. including the 

items cited in this recommendation. A primary consideration of the ad hoc committee regarding 

the Senior FAM Program will be consistency in application throughout OLEIFAMS. The ad hoc 

committee will develop recommendations for consideration and implementation by senior 

leadership. Any new criteria for the program will be communicated to the entire F AMS. 

Recommendation 9: Communicate speCific application criteria to all J-band promotion 

applieanls at tbe beginning of each promolion cycle. 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 79 
Appendix C 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

5 

TSA ConCurS but would Dote tb at TSA bas already addressed th is recommendation. The 

FAM J-Band promotion job opportunity is posted on USAJobs.gov to reach all interested FAM 

applicants. The process is also communicated to all FAMS employees via a FAMS broadcast 

message which includes a timelinc for the process, instructions on how to apply, and resource 

materials for the applicant. Resource materials include the standardized job desc ription for the 

position, a candidate preparation manual, and a frequently asked questions reference sheet. 

There are also two informational sessions conducted to provide an overview of the J-Band 

application process. One of the sessions is also recorded and added to the F AMS homepage so 

individuals may listen to the session in the event he or she is not able to participate. Employees 

are also made aware of the TSA Career Coaching Services to assist personnel wlIh a variety of 

career development issues including completing application packages. Detailed information 

regarding the career coaching services available to assist F AMs with completing the application 

is also available on the F AM J Band Promotion Process site on the F AMS Homcpage. 

in addition to the items noted above, the Candidate Dashboard was recently implemented for the 

FAM J-Band Promotion Process effective on October 1,2011. The Candidate Dashboard is an 

electronic hiring system that enables each applicant to track their status through each phase of 

the application process. 

Recommendation 10: Review evalu ation and assessment procedures for the J-band 

promotion process and revise os necessary to ensure thai certification lists contain the best 

qualified candidates. 

TSA concurs. OHC is currently pannering with OLEIF AMS to review and recommend 

improved candidate evaluation and assessments specifically in regards to J-band promotions. 

TSA will continue to furthe r these efforts to ensure that certification lists contain the best 

qualified candidates. 

Recommendation 11 : Develop guidelines to defin e when Federal Air Marshals can be 

removed from internationol flight schedules, including what performance a nd conduct 

issues ca n cause a Federal Air Ma rshal to be removed and the duration of the restriction. 

TSA concurs. As OIG notes in their report, international missions are the most sensitive 

missions that a Federal Air Marshal (F AM) will fly. OIG rightly points out that these missions 

are long and often in areas where there is no immediate ground landing possible and no 

immediate FAM or other U.S. support available. International missions are highly sensitive 

missions whereby a F AM must subscribe to the rules and laws of the nation they are visiting and 

where issues could potentially affect F AMS missions overseas andlor create oth~r serious 

diplomatic ramifications. 

Therefore, international missions are assigned to F AMs who are perfomling at or above expected 

levels; who have gained their supervisor's confidence; and have demonstrated the requisite 

professionalism, ability, and skills. Employees not performing up to these expectations- who do 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 80 
Appendix C 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

6 

not demonstrate the ability to follow supervisory direction or work independently while 

following FAM polices or procedures- have to be scheduled less sensitive work assignments. 

This type of personnel detennination must be evaluated on a case-by~case basis. For these 

reasons, final supervisory authority regarding FAMs and international missions must rest with 

the Field Office management who best know the strengths and weaknesses creach FAM. 

However, clarification regarding the removal ofFAMs from international missions will be 

provided to the Field Offices, 

Recommendation 12: Create and implement an action plan to address workplace issues 

identified in our survey. The plan should include training for supervisors OD 

communica tion and conflict man agement that is ta ilored to the unique Federal Air 

Marshal mission. 

TSA Concurs. The F AMS Director's Office is actively creating an action plan 10 address the 

imponant workplace issues identified in the DIG workforce satisfaction survey and a copy will 

be provided to OIG upon completion. 

TSA notes that FAMS has recently completed a pilot session of the Supervisory Federal Air 

Marshal (SFAM) Leadership Initiative. This initiative requires each SFAM to participate in 

training at OLEIF AMS Headquaners. The training emphasizes the importance of 

communication, relationship·buitding, and support of personnel to continue the transformation of 

the OLEJFAMS culture. Further infomlation about the SF AM Leadership Initiative and other 

actions taken by OLEIF AMS will be: provided to the 01G in the action plan. 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 81 
Appendix D 

Selected EEO Laws, Regulations, and Executive Orders 

EEO is set forth in a number of laws, federal regulations, and Executive 

orders that, among other things, prohibit retaliation against an individual 

who complains about discrimination, files a charge of discrimination, or 

participates in an investigation or lawsuit pertaining to discrimination in 

the workplace. The laws, federal regulations, and Executive orders 

pertaining to EEO include the following: 

Laws 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 

This law prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, 

religion, sex, or national origin. Employers also must provide reasonable 

accommodation of an employee’s religious beliefs or practices, unless 

doing so would cause an undue hardship on the employer. 

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act 

An amendment to Title VII, this law prohibits employment discrimination 

against a woman on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or a medical 

condition related to pregnancy or childbirth. 

The Equal Pay Act of 1963 

This law protects men and women who perform substantially equal work 

in the same establishment from wage discrimination based on their sex. 

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 

This law protects people who are 40 years of age or older from 

employment discrimination based on age. 

Sections 102 and 103 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 

This law amends Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act by 

permitting jury trials and the award of compensatory and punitive 

damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination. 

Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 

This law prohibits employment discrimination against qualified 

individuals with disabilities in the federal government. Employers also 

must provide reasonable accommodation for known physical or mental 

limitations of an otherwise qualified individual, unless doing so would 

cause undue hardship on the employer. 

The Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and 

Retaliation Act of 2002 (The No FEAR Act of 2002) 

This law holds federal agencies accountable for violations of 

antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws by requiring that 

each agency post certain statistical data pertaining to EEO complaints filed 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 82 
 

Appendix D 

Selected EEO Laws, Regulations, and Executive Orders 

against it. Federal agencies also must make employees aware of the 

various antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws. 

The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 

This law protects employees, former employees, and job applicants from 

retaliation or adverse treatment for disclosing information reasonably 

believed to constitute a violation of law, rule, or regulation, or gross 

mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or substantial 

danger to public health or safety. 

Executive Orders 

Executive Order 11478, as amended (1971): This directive reiterated the 

federal government’s policy to provide equal employment opportunity on 

the basis of merit and fitness and “without discrimination because of race, 

color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 

Executive Order 12106 (1978): This directive amended Executive Order 

11478 to expand its coverage to include nondiscrimination based on age 

and disability. 

Executive Order 12968 (1995): This directive bars denial of a security 

clearance on the basis of sexual orientation. 

Executive Order 13087 (1998): This directive further amended Executive 

Order 11478 to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in the 

federal civilian workforce. 

Executive Order 13163 (2000): This directive promotes a policy designed 

to increase opportunities for individuals with disabilities employed at all 

levels and occupations in the federal government. 

Executive Order 13164 (2000): This directive requires federal agencies to 

establish written procedures to facilitate the provision that “reasonable 

accommodations” be made under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 83 
Appendix E 

Factors to Consider in Determining Discipline 

The following factors should be considered in determining an appropriate penalty. 

Not all factors are relevant to every case. 

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, was committed maliciously or for gain, 

or was frequently repeated; 

2)	 The employee’s job level and type of employment, including supervisory or 

fiduciary role, contacts with the public, and prominence of the position; 

3)	 The employee’s past disciplinary record; 

4)	 The employee’s past work record, including length of service, performance on 

the job, ability to get along with fellow workers, and dependability; 

5) The effect of the offense upon the employee’s ability to perform at a 

satisfactory level and its effect upon supervisors’ confidence in the 

employee’s work ability to perform assigned duties; 

6) Consistency of the penalty with those imposed upon similarly situated 

employees for the same or similar offenses; 

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

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

9) The clarity with which the employee was on notice of any rules that were 

violated in committing the offense, or had been warned about the conduct in 

question; 

10) The potential for the employee’s rehabilitation; 

11) Mitigating circumstances surrounding the offense, such as unusual job 

tensions, personality problems, mental impairment, harassment, or bad faith, 

malice, or provocation on the part of others involved in the matter; and 

12) The adequacy and effectiveness of alternative sanctions to deter such conduct 

in the future by the employee or others. 

Source: Douglas vs. Veterans Administration, 5 MSPR 280 (1981). 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 84 
Appendix F 

Survey Questions and Responses 

Our survey included 85 questions. Respondents answered a 

minimum of 65 questions. Respondents could have answered as 

many as 20 additional questions based on how they answered 

survey questions 50, 58, and 66, which asked respondents whether 

they believe they have been treated unfavorably because of any 

one of a provided list of reasons. 

Forty-eight of our survey questions, 1–48, used the Likert scale, a 

common survey methodology, which measures respondents’ 

agreement or disagreement or their satisfaction or dissatisfaction 

with a statement. The table below shows how to interpret the 

results of all Likert items except for question 33. For question 33, 

“Strongly agree” and “Agree” are negative and “Strongly disagree” 

or “Disagree” are positive. “Neither agree nor disagree” and “Do 

not know” are interpreted the same for question 33 as for the other 

Likert Items. 

Positive Responses 

Neutral 

Response Negative Response Agnostic 

Strongly 

Agree Agree 

Neither 

agree nor 

disagree 

Disagree Strongly 

Disagree 

Do Not 

Know 

Strongly 

Agree Agree 

Neither 

agree nor 

disagree 

Disagree Strongly 

Disagree 

Very 

Satisfied Satisfied 

Neither 

Satisfied 

nor 

Dissatisfied 

Dissatisfied Very 

Dissatisfied 

Seven of our survey questions asked respondents to answer “Yes” 

or “No” to a question. Thirty of our survey questions presented 

many possible answers for respondents to choose from. In many 

questions, respondents could select more than one answer. 

Our survey asked 12 demographic questions covering areas such as 

length of service, job function, pay band, duty location, gender, race, 

and age. Appendix I gives select survey respondent demographics. 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 85 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Percent 

Positive 

Strongly 

Agree Agree 

Neither 

Agree 

Nor 

Disagree 

Disagree Strongly 

Disagree 

Do 

Not 

Know 

Performance Standards 

1. The performance standards, 

upon which my rating is 

based, are appropriate for the 

work that I do. 

49.5% 8.3% 41.2% 14.3% 20.1% 14.8% 1.2% 

2.	 My supervisor has enough 

information concerning the 51.1% 12.8% 38.3% 13.3% 20.1% 14.7% 0.9% performance of my duties to
 

accurately rate me. 


3.	 Personal favoritism is not a 


factor my
 15.2% 32.8% 17.1% 13.5% 17.6% 3.7% supervisor considers when 


rating me. 


4.	 My current performance 


appraisal is an accurate
 13.2% 38.8% 20.2% 18.0% 9.8%
 

reflection of my performance. 


48.0%

52.0% 

5.	 My supervisor provides me 

with constructive suggestions 46.4% 11.7% 34.7% 21.7% 20.4% 11.4% to improve my job 

performance. 

Awards and Promotions 

6. I understand what I have to do 

to receive an in-position 

increase. 

31.4% 7.0% 24.4% 15.1% 27.2% 26.2% 

7. In-position increases are 

based on merit. 21.9% 5.6% 16.3% 17.3% 20.5% 35.4% 4.9% 

8. Personal favoritism is not a 

factor when awarding inposition increases. 23.2% 6.9% 16.3% 17.0% 21.0% 33.5% 5.2% 

9. I understand what I have to do 

to receive a cash or time-off 

award. 

31.8% 6.9% 24.9% 17.4% 29.9% 20.9% 

10. Cash and time-off awards are 

based on merit. 25.7% 6.1% 19.6% 20.6% 18.7% 28.1% 6.9% 

11. Personal favoritism is not a 

factor when awarding cash or 

time off. 

24.8% 6.8% 18.0% 20.9% 19.7% 27.3% 7.3% 

12. I understand the promotion 39.8% 7.7% 32.1% 17.2% 21.7% 21.3% 

process. 

13. Promotions are based on 39.7% 3.9% 13.2% 18.6% 20.4% 4.3% merit. 

14.	 Personal favoritism is not a 


factor in the promotion 
 4.0% 11.4% 18.5% 20.8% 40.1% 5.2% 

process. 

17.1%

15.4% 

Appendix F 

Survey Questions and Responses 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 86 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ground-Based Assignments and International Missions 

15. The criteria for being selected 

for ground-based assignments 

are clearly communicated. 

41.9% 7.7% 34.2% 16.3% 15.3% 15.9% 10.6% 

16. Those employees selected for 

ground-based assignments 

meet the stated criteria. 

31.4% 5.8% 25.6% 26.1% 12.2% 12.0% 18.4% 

17. Personal favoritism is not 

considered when groundbased assignments are 

selected. 

20.3% 5.1% 15.2% 20.7% 19.1% 24.6% 15.3% 

18. The criteria for being assigned 

to international missions are 

clearly communicated. 

46.2% 10.9% 35.3% 18.7% 11.4% 11.1% 12.5% 

19. Personal favoritism is not a 

factor when international 

missions are assigned. 

36.6% 10.0% 26.6% 19.8% 13.1% 16.1% 14.3% 

Reporting and Addressing Misconduct 

20.	 Appropriate policies and 

procedures are in place to 42.2% 8.0% 34.2% 18.5% 16.0% 19.0% 4.3% address workplace complaints 


and disputes. 


21.	 I can disclose a suspected 

violation of any law, rule, or 8.5% 22.7% 21.6% 22.5% 24.8% regulation without fear of
 

retaliation. 


22.	 I trust my immediate 

supervisor to respond 

appropriately to reported 17.0% 39.3% 19.8% 11.1% 12.8% 

misconduct, complaints, or 

disputes. 

31.2% 

56.3%

23.	 I trust my immediate 

supervisor to respond timely 56.8% 16.5% 40.3% 20.6% 10.8% 11.7% to reported misconduct, 


complaints, or disputes. 


24.	 If I suspected that my coworkers or managers were 

engaged in misconduct or 32.5% 39.5% 14.9% 7.1% 6.0% illegal activity, I would report 


it to the appropriate
 

OLE/FAMS officials.
 

72.0% 

25. If I suspected that my coworkers or managers were 

engaged in misconduct or 

illegal activity, I would report 

it to the appropriate TSA 

officials. 

66.2% 29.0% 37.2% 18.5% 8.9% 6.4% 

26. If a senior manager in 

OLE/FAMS engages in 

misconduct or illegal activity, 

they are held accountable. 

20.5% 6.7% 13.8% 15.3% 17.4% 34.4% 12.4% 

Appendix F 

Survey Questions and Responses 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 87 
27. If a law enforcement 

supervisor engages in 

misconduct or illegal activity, 

they are held accountable. 

29.6% 8.6% 21.0% 17.7% 16.6% 23.0% 13.2% 

28. If a Federal Air Marshal 

engages in misconduct or 

illegal activity, they are held 

accountable. 

76.3% 37.5% 38.8% 9.7% 4.0% 4.1% 5.8% 

29. If a professional, technical, 

or administrative staff 

member engages in 

misconduct or illegal activity, 

they are held accountable. 

38.9% 11.7% 27.2% 24.0% 7.8% 7.1% 22.2% 

30. The disciplinary process is fair. 17.8% 3.9% 13.9% 20.5% 20.2% 32.7% 8.8% 

31.	 Disciplinary actions are 

applied consistently for 

similar offenses. 

14.6% 3.2% 11.4% 16.3% 20.8% 35.7% 12.5% 

32.	 Disciplinary actions are at the 

appropriate level of severity 

given the offense. 

16.0% 3.3% 12.7% 23.3% 19.7% 28.8% 12.1% 

33.	 Disciplinary actions are used 

as a tool to retaliate against 

employees. 

21.9% 20.6% 21.9% 26.0% 12.8% 9.1% 9.5% 

Workplace Culture 

34. My supervisor supports 

diversity in the workplace. 63.0% 19.0% 44.0% 20.6% 4.5% 5.6% 6.2%

35.	 Policies and programs 

promote diversity in the 

workplace (for example, 

recruiting minorities and 


women, diversity training, 


mentoring).
 

57.0% 17.1% 39.9% 22.5% 6.5% 6.8% 7.0%

36.	 Supervisors work well with 

employees of different 

backgrounds. 

57.0% 15.3% 41.7% 22.5% 8.4% 8.3% 3.7% 

37. Personal favoritism is not 

tolerated in my workplace. 21.8% 5.8% 16.0% 20.0% 23.4% 31.5% 3.3%

38.	 Prohibited Personnel Practices 

(for example, illegally 

discriminating for or against 

any employee/applicant, 

obstructing a person’s right to 

compete for employment, 

knowingly violating veterans’ 

preference requirements) are 

not tolerated. 

40.9% 12.4% 28.5% 22.1% 10.3% 13.4% 13.4% 

39.	 My supervisor supports my 

need to balance work and 

other life issues. 

58.8% 18.6% 40.2% 15.8% 9.9% 14.3% 1.3% 

Job Satisfaction 

40. I am given an opportunity to 

improve my skills in my 

organization. 

43.2% 9.8% 33.4% 21.0% 21.6% 14.2% 

41. I feel encouraged to come up 

with new and better ways of 

doing things. 

36.1% 9.8% 26.3% 22.3% 24.7% 16.9% 

Appendix F 

Survey Questions and Responses 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 88 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

42. My work gives me a feeling 55.9% 17.5% 38.4% 17.4% 14.2% 12.5% of personal accomplishment. 

43. My talents are used well in 9.9% 29.1% 20.3% 22.0% 18.7% the workplace. 

44. The people I work with 17.8% 57.7% 14.5% 6.3% 3.7% cooperate to get the job done. 

45. Creativity and innovation are 5.8% 18.5% 32.0% 26.3% 17.5% rewarded. 

39.0% 

75.5% 

24.3% 

Percent 

Positive 

Very 

Satisfied Satisfied 

Neither 

Satisfied 

Nor 

Dissatisfied 

Dissatisfied Very 

Dissatisfied 

46. How satisfied are you with 

the recognition you 

receive for doing a good 

job? 

34.6% 8.2% 26.4% 24.7% 23.1% 17.6% 

47.	 How satisfied are you with 

your opportunity to get a 23.3% 5.3% 18.0% 24.5% 24.6% 27.5% better job in your 

organization? 

48. Considering everything, 

how satisfied are you with 

your job? 

53.4% 14.4% 39.0% 21.6% 14.9% 10.1% 

Discrimination and Unfavorable Treatment 

49. Do you know who to contact if you feel you are or have been discriminated against or harassed on the job? 

Yes 	77.0%

No 	23.0%

50.	 Do you believe that you have been treated unfavorably because of any of the following? [More than one can be 

selected] 

Race or Color	 14.0% 

National origin	 3.7% 

Sex, including pregnancy or sexual orientation	 6.2% 

Religion, including because you requested a reasonable accommodation 1.6% 

Age 	13.1%

Disability, including because you requested a reasonable accommodation 3.9% 

I have not been treated unfavorably because of any of the above reasons. 74.6% 

51.	 Who was it that treated you unfavorably? [More than one can be selected] 

Senior manager in my office 	 62.4% 

Senior manager outside of my office 	 24.9% 

Immediate supervisor 	 43.6% 

Co-worker 	18.9%

Other 	12.8%

Appendix F 

Survey Questions and Responses 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 89 
Appendix F 

Survey Questions and Responses 

52. Did the incident(s) of unfavorable treatment occur within the last 24 months? 

Yes 51.5% 

An incident or incidents occurred within the last 24 months, but other 

incidents occurred earlier than that. 27.6% 

No 20.9% 

53. Where did the incident(s) take place? [More than one can be selected] 

Atlantic City 6.0% 

Herndon 5.7% 

Headquarters Ashburn 0.3% 

Reston 5.0% 

Arlington 1.7% 

Atlanta 8.6% 

Baltimore 1.3% 

Boston 2.5% 

Charlotte 2.6% 

Chicago 4.8% 

Cincinnati 1.6% 

Cleveland 1.1% 

Dallas 7.8% 

Denver 1.7% 

Detroit 3.3% 

Houston 5.4% 

Las Vegas 2.3% 

Field Offices Los Angeles 

Miami 

4.5% 

3.8% 

Minneapolis 0.9% 

Newark 3.7% 

New York 9.0% 

Orlando 4.2% 

Philadelphia 2.5% 

Phoenix 0.7% 

Pittsburgh 1.6% 

San Diego 0.4% 

San Francisco 1.1% 

Seattle 1.9% 

Tampa 1.1% 

Washington 14.0% 

Other 8.7% 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 90 
Appendix F 

Survey Questions and Responses 

54. What actions did you take regarding your treatment? [More than one can be selected] 

Notified your immediate supervisor 30.1% 

Notified someone in your office other than your immediate supervisor 25.7% 

Notified the Director of OLE/FAMS by sending an anonymous email 4.6% 

Contacted the Ombudsman 14.3% 

Contacted an equal employment opportunity office 14.2% 

Filed an equal employment opportunity complaint (informal or formal) 12.8% 

Filed an appeal with the Merit Systems Protection Board 1.5% 

Filed a lawsuit against the agency 3.3% 

Contacted the TSA Office of Inspection 3.7% 

Contacted the DHS Office of Inspector General 4.0% 

Contacted a member of Congress 6.6% 

None 39.6% 

Other 14.2% 

55. Were the actions you took effective in resolving the problem of unfavorable treatment? 

Yes 9.8% 

No 90.2% 

56. Why did you take no action regarding your treatment? 

I did not feel that the incident was severe enough to warrant action 11.8% 

The issue was resolved without action on my part 3.0% 

Unsure who to contact to take action 2.7% 

Fear of retaliation 64.9% 

I am considering taking action 4.4% 

Other 13.2% 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 91 
Retaliation and Unfavorable Treatment 

57. Do you know who to contact if you feel you are or have been retaliated against? 

Yes 	69.7%

No 	30.3%

58.	 Do you believe that TSA or FAMS has retaliated against you or treated you unfavorably because you did any of 

the following? [More than one can be selected] 

Disclosed information that you believe to be a violation of any law, rule, or 

regulation 6.3%

Disclosed information that you believe to be a gross mismanagement, a 

gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific 

danger to public health or safety 

7.8% 

Exercised any appeal, complaint, or grievance right granted by any law, rule, 

or regulation 8.6%

Testified for or otherwise lawfully assisted any individual in the exercise of 

their right of appeal, complaint, or grievance right 3.3%

Cooperated with or disclosed information to the Inspector General of an 

agency, or the Special Counsel, in accordance with applicable provisions of 

law 

2.7% 

Refused to obey an order that would require the individual to violate a law 1.0% 

I have not been retaliated against or treated unfavorably because of any of 84.0% the above reasons 

59.	 What form did the retaliation or unfavorable treatment take? [More than one can be selected] 

A personnel action 	 44.5% 

Verbal counseling 	 27.9% 

Written counseling 	 24.1% 

Conduct that was unprofessional 	 50.4% 

Other 	43.6%

60. Who do you believe retaliated against you or treated you unfavorably? [More than one can be selected] 

Senior Manager in my office 	 72.1% 

Senior Manager outside of my office 	 24.1% 

Immediate supervisor 	 56.4% 

Co-worker 	13.7%

Other 	10.8%

61.	 Did this retaliation or unfavorable treatment take place within the last 24 months? 

Yes 	51.3%

An incident or incidents occurred within the last 24 months, but other 

incidents occurred earlier than that. 26.9%

No 	21.7%

Appendix F 

Survey Questions and Responses 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 


Page 92
 
 

Appendix F 

Survey Questions and Responses 

62. Where did the incident(s) of retaliation or unfavorable treatment take place? [More than one can be selected] 

Atlantic City 5.3% 

Herndon 5.5% 

Headquarters Ashburn 0.0% 

Reston 5.1% 

Arlington 2.2% 

Atlanta 7.3% 

Baltimore 2.2% 

Boston 3.1% 

Charlotte 1.3% 

Chicago 4.2% 

Cincinnati 2.4% 

Cleveland 1.5% 

Dallas 8.2% 

Denver 3.1% 

Detroit 3.3% 

Houston 5.8% 

Las Vegas 2.2% 

Field Offices Los Angeles 

Miami 

5.3% 

3.1% 

Minneapolis 0.0% 

Newark 2.9% 

New York 9.7% 

Orlando 4.6% 

Philadelphia 5.3% 

Phoenix 0.4% 

Pittsburgh 2.0% 

San Diego 0.2% 

San Francisco 0.9% 

Seattle 2.7% 

Tampa 2.2% 

Washington 13.3% 

Other 5.5% 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 93 
Appendix F 

Survey Questions and Responses 

63.	 What actions did you take in response to the retaliation or unfavorable treatment? [More than one can be 

selected] 

Notified your immediate supervisor 	 37.8% 

Notified someone in your office other than your immediate supervisor 35.8% 

Notified the Director of OLE/FAMS by sending an anonymous email 6.6% 

Contacted the Ombudsman 	 19.7% 

Contacted an equal employment opportunity office 	 17.9% 

Filed an equal employment opportunity complaint (informal or formal) 15.7% 

Filed an appeal with the Merit Systems Protection Board	 3.5% 

Filed a lawsuit against the agency 	 5.5% 

Contacted the TSA Office of Inspection	 6.4% 

Contacted the DHS Office of Inspector General 	 7.3% 

Contacted the Office of Special Counsel 	 5.3% 

Contacted a member of Congress 	 8.8% 

None 	27.0% 

Other 	23.7% 

64. Were the actions you took effective in resolving the problem of retaliation or unfavorable treatment? 

Yes 	11.2% 

No 	88.8% 

65.	 Why did you take no action regarding the retaliation or unfavorable treatment? 

I did not feel that the incident was severe enough to warrant action 5.8% 

The issue was resolved without action on my part	 0.0% 

Unsure who to contact to take action 	 2.5% 

Fear of further retaliation	 80.8% 

I am considering taking action	 3.3% 

Other 	7.5% 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 94 
 

Appendix F 

Survey Questions and Responses 

66.	 Do you believe that TSA or FAMS has retaliated against you or treated you unfavorably because you did any of 

the following? [More than one can be selected] 

Questioned policies or procedures 	 20.6% 

Proposed changes to policy or procedures	 9.8% 

Questioned decisions made by your immediate supervisor or senior 21.6% management 

Requested annual leave 	 3.7% 

Requested sick leave 	 10.2% 

Requested leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act	 3.3% 

Requested leave for military duty	 2.1% 

Requested schedule adjustments	 5.4% 

Requested light duty	 4.2% 

I have not been retaliated against or treated unfavorably because any of the 68.5% above reasons 

67.	 What form did the retaliation or unfavorable treatment take? [More than one can be selected] 

A personnel action 	 28.9% 

Verbal counseling 	 24.2% 

Written counseling 	 15.4% 

Conduct that was unprofessional 	 39.6% 

Other 	46.0% 

68. Who do you believe retaliated against you or treated you unfavorably? [More than one can be selected] 

Senior Manager in my office 	 64.3% 

Senior Manager outside of my office 	 16.5% 

Immediate supervisor 	 54.9% 

Co-worker 	9.4% 

Other 	9.6% 

69.	 Did this retaliation or unfavorable treatment take place within the last 24 months? 

Yes 	49.0% 

An incident or incidents occurred within the last 24 months, but other 22.1% incidents occurred earlier than that. 

No 	28.9% 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 95 
Appendix F 

Survey Questions and Responses 

70. Where did the incident(s) of retaliation or unfavorable treatment take place? [More than one can be selected] 

Atlantic City 3.4% 

Herndon 4.6% 

Headquarters Ashburn 0.3% 

Reston 4.0% 

Arlington 1.5% 

Atlanta 6.5% 

Baltimore 1.4% 

Boston 2.2% 

Charlotte 1.9% 

Chicago 4.5% 

Cincinnati 2.0% 

Cleveland 1.1% 

Dallas 8.3% 

Denver 2.4% 

Detroit 3.5% 

Houston 5.3% 

Las Vegas 2.0% 

Field Offices Los Angeles 

Miami 

4.1% 

2.7% 

Minneapolis 0.2% 

Newark 3.2% 

New York 12.1% 

Orlando 4.0% 

Philadelphia 4.6% 

Phoenix 0.3% 

Pittsburgh 2.3% 

San Diego 0.4% 

San Francisco 0.7% 

Seattle 1.9% 

Tampa 1.4% 

Washington 11.9% 

Other 6.2% 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 96 
Appendix F 

Survey Questions and Responses 

71.	 What actions did you take in response to the retaliation or unfavorable treatment? [More than one can be 

selected] 

Notified your immediate supervisor 26.7% 

Notified someone in your office other than your immediate supervisor 24.3% 

Notified the Director of OLE/FAMS by sending an anonymous email 4.2% 

Contacted the Ombudsman 10.4% 

Contacted an equal employment opportunity office 9.6% 

Filed an equal employment opportunity complaint (informal or formal) 7.3% 

Filed an appeal with the Merit Systems Protection Board 1.5% 

Filed a lawsuit against the agency 2.5% 

Contacted the TSA Office of Inspection 2.7% 

Contacted the DHS Office of Inspector General 3.7% 

Contacted the Office of Special Counsel 2.5% 

Contacted a member of Congress 3.9% 

None 47.9% 

Other 14.5% 

72. Were the actions you took effective in resolving the problem of retaliation? 

Yes 11.5% 

No 88.5% 

73. Why did you take no action regarding the retaliation or unfavorable treatment? 

I did not feel that the incident was severe enough to warrant action 16.6% 

The issue was resolved without action on my part 2.3% 

Unsure who to contact to take action 1.9% 

Fear of further retaliation 62.5% 

I am considering taking action 2.3% 

Other 14.5% 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 97 
Appendix G 

Select Survey Responses by Location 

Percentage of respondents who believe they were treated unfavorably

because they are in a protected class (discrimination), by location.

*Dallas 45

Houston 43

Atlanta 37

*Orlando/Tampa 35

*Charlotte 33

Las Vegas/Phoenix 33

San Francisco 32

Los Angeles/San Diego 31

Other 29

Miami 26

All respondents 25

Detroit 25

Chicago 25

Newark 25

New York 24

Baltimore 24

Arlington 24

Herndon 22

Seattle 20

*Cincinnati 20

Washington 19

Boston 18

Reston 17

Denver 17

Cleveland 16

Atlantic City 15

Philadelphia 14

*Minneapolis 14

Pittsburgh 13

Ashburn 7

*Denotes a field office we visited prior to conducting our survey.
 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 98 
Appendix G 

Select Survey Responses by Location 

Percentage of respondents who believe prohibited personnel practices 

are tolerated, by location.

*Dallas 57

Seattle 38

*Orlando/Tampa 34

Atlanta 32

Houston 30

*Cincinnati 28

Chicago 27

Cleveland 26

*Charlotte 25

San Francisco 24

Other 24

All respondents 24

New York 24

Boston 24

Los Angeles/San Diego 23

Detroit 22

Herndon 22

Arlington 21

Newark 20

Las Vegas/Phoenix 19

Miami 18

Washington 17

Denver 17

Baltimore 16

Philadelphia 16

Pittsburgh 15

*Minneapolis 11

Atlantic City 11

Reston 10

Ashburn 7

*Denotes a field office we visited prior to conducting our survey.
 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 99 
Appendix G 

Select Survey Responses by Location 

Percentage of respondents who believe they cannot disclose a violation of any rule, 

law, or regulation without fear of retaliation, by location.
 

*Dallas 82

Houston 66

Las Vegas/Phoenix 59

New York 57

Los Angeles/San Diego 55

Miami 53

Seattle 53

Detroit 52

Cleveland 51

Philadelphia 51

Denver 51

*Orlando/Tampa 51

Atlanta 48

All respondents 47

*Cincinnati 47

*Charlotte 47

Newark 45

Chicago 45

Pittsburgh 44

Washington 43

Other 39

Herndon 38

Boston 37

San Francisco 35

Arlington 34

Baltimore 30

Ashburn 29

Reston 27

Atlantic City 24

*Minneapolis 19

*Denotes a field office we visited prior to conducting our survey.
 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 100 
Appendix G 

Select Survey Responses by Location 

Percentage of respondents who would not report misconduct or illegal activity 

to the appropriate FAMS official, by location.

*Dallas 24

Cleveland 21

Miami 19

Los Angeles/San Diego 19

Philadelphia 19

*Orlando/Tampa 19

Las Vegas/Phoenix 19

*Charlotte 18

*Cincinnati 16

Pittsburgh 16

Denver 15

Detroit 15

Chicago 14

Houston 13

All respondents 13

Atlanta 13

Herndon 13

New York 12

Newark 11

Reston 11

Other 11

Arlington 11

Seattle 10

Washington 9

Ashburn 7

Atlantic City 6

*Minneapolis 6

Boston 5

Baltimore 5

San Francisco 3

*Denotes a field office we visited prior to conducting our survey. 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 101 
Appendix G 

Select Survey Responses by Location 

Percentage of respondents who think the disciplinary process
 

is unfair, by location.

*Dallas 83

Los Angeles/San Diego 71

Las Vegas/Phoenix 67

Philadelphia 66

*Orlando/Tampa 65

Atlanta 64

Houston 63

New York 62

Newark 59

Miami 59

*Charlotte 58

San Francisco 57

Seattle 55

Cleveland 54

*Cincinnati 53

All respondents 53

Pittsburgh 52

Chicago 52

Boston 51

Denver 51

Detroit 47

Other 45

Baltimore 43

Washington 41

Herndon 35

Atlantic City 30

*Minneapolis 28

Reston 21

Arlington 18

Ashburn 0

*Denotes a field office we visited prior to conducting our survey. 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 102 
Percentage of respondents who think disciplinary actions 

are applied inconsistently, by location.

*Dallas 84

Las Vegas/Phoenix 76

Los Angeles/San Diego

Atlanta

New York

69

67

66

Houston

Miami

65

62
 

*Orlando/Tampa

Philadelphia
 

62
 

62

Cleveland 61

Newark 60
 

*Charlotte

San Francisco
 

60
 

59

Denver 58

Seattle

Boston

58

57
 

Chicago

All respondents
 

57
 

57
 

*Cincinnati
 55
 

Pittsburgh

Detroit
 

52
 

52
 

Washington 49
 

Baltimore

Other
 

Herndon

49
 

46
 

39
 

Atlantic City

*Minneapolis
 

36
 

33
 

Reston

Arlington
 

25
 

24
 

Ashburn
 21

*Denotes a field office we visited prior to conducting our survey.

Appendix G 

Select Survey Responses by Location 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 103 
Appendix G 

Select Survey Responses by Location 

Percentage of respondents who think disciplinary actions are not 

at the appropriate level of severity, by location.

*Dallas 78

Las Vegas/Phoenix 70

New York 64

Houston 63

Los Angeles/San Diego 62

Miami 60

Philadelphia 55

San Francisco 54

Newark 54

*Cincinnati 53

*Orlando/Tampa 53

Chicago 52

Cleveland 51

*Charlotte 51

Boston 51

Denver 49

All respondents 49

Atlanta 46

Seattle 45

Pittsburgh 43

Other 39

Detroit 38

Baltimore 38

Washington 38

*Minneapolis 33

Herndon 33

Atlantic City 24

Reston 19

Arlington 16

Ashburn 7

*Denotes a field office we visited prior to conducting our survey.
 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 104 
Appendix G 

Select Survey Responses by Location

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 105

*Dallas 75

55

Houston 54

53

52

Atlanta 47

47

Newark 44

Chicago 44

Boston 44

43

43

42

*Orlando/Tampa 42

Philadelphia 42

Miami 41

41

40

Cleveland 40

Denver 39

39

36

Detroit 36

Other 34

Herndon 33

Arlington 24

22

Reston 22

*Minneapolis 17

Ashburn 14
Appendix G 

Select Survey Responses by Location 

Percentage of respondents who believe favoritsm is tolerated 

in their workplace, by location.
 

*Dallas 81

Philadelphia 71

Las Vegas/Phoenix 70

Houston 68

Atlanta 67

New York 67

Chicago 67

Denver 63

Detroit 62

Los Angeles/San Diego 61

Newark 60

*Orlando/Tampa 57

All respondents 55

Miami 54

Herndon 52

Seattle 50

Other 47

Washington 47

*Cincinnati 47

Baltimore 46

San Francisco 46

Pittsburgh 45

Cleveland 44

*Charlotte 42

Boston 39

Arlington 37

Reston 34

Atlantic City 33

*Minneapolis 28

*Denotes a field office we visited prior to conducting our survey. 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 106 
Percent 

Positive 

Strongly 

Agree Agree 

Neither 

Agree 

Nor 

Disagree 

Disagree Strongly 

Disagree 

Do 

Not 

Know 

OIG FAMS #4 

My current performance appraisal 

is an accurate reflection of my 

performance. 

52.0% 13.2% 38.8% 20.2% 18.0% 9.8% 

2010 DHS Viewpoint Survey #15 

My performance appraisal is a 

fair reflection of my performance. 

67.1% 24.4% 42.7% 13.9% 8.9% 8.4% 1.8% 

OIG FAMS #13 

Promotions are based on merit. 17.1% 3.9% 13.2% 18.6% 20.4% 39.7% 4.3%

2010 DHS Viewpoint Survey #22 

Promotions in my work unit are 

based on merit. 

34.0% 8.6% 25.4% 23.9% 18.0% 19% 5.1% 

OIG FAMS #21 

I can disclose a suspected 

violation of any law, rule, or 

regulation without fear of 

retaliation. 

31.2% 8.5% 22.7% 21.6% 22.5% 24.8% 

2010 DHS Viewpoint Survey #17 

I can disclose a suspected 

violation of any law, rule, or 

regulation without fear of 

reprisal. 

57.4% 22.1% 35.3% 18.2% 9.7% 10.7% 4.0% 

OIG FAMS #35 

Policies and programs promote 

diversity in the workplace (for 

example, recruiting minorities 

and women, diversity training, 

mentoring). 

57.0% 17.1% 39.9% 22.5% 6.5% 6.8% 7.0% 

2010 DHS Viewpoint Survey #34 

Same question. 60.4% 22.0% 38.4% 17.9% 6.3% 8.6% 6.8% 

OIG FAMS #36 

Supervisors work well with 

employees of different 

backgrounds. 

57.0% 15.3% 41.7% 22.5% 8.4% 8.3% 3.7% 

2010 DHS Viewpoint Survey #55 

Managers/supervisors/team 

leaders work well with employees 

of different backgrounds. 

61.5% 16.9% 44.6% 19.8% 8.4% 7.2% 3.1% 

Appendix H 

Select Questions – OIG FAMS Survey Compared to 2010 DHS-wide Survey 

Following are 16 questions from our survey and the identical or nearly identical questions 

OPM posed during its 2010 survey of DHS employees and the corresponding responses. 

For purposes of this comparison, we unweighted DHS’ results. 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 


Page 107
 
Appendix H 

Select Questions – OIG FAMS Survey Compared to 2010 DHS-wide Survey 

Percent 

Positive 

Strongly 

Agree Agree 

Neither 

Agree 

Nor 

Disagree 

Disagree Strongly 

Disagree 

Do 

Not 

Know 

OIG FAMS #38 

Prohibited Personnel Practices 

(for example, illegally 

discriminating for or against any 

employee/applicant, obstructing a 

person’s right to compete for 

employment, knowingly violating 

veterans’ preference 

requirements) are not tolerated. 

40.9% 12.4% 28.5% 22.1% 10.3% 13.4% 13.4% 

2010 DHS Viewpoint Survey #38 

Same question. 60.4% 22.0% 38.4% 17.9% 6.3% 8.6% 6.8% 

OIG FAMS #39 

My supervisor supports my need 

to balance work and other life 

issues. 

58.8% 18.6% 40.2% 15.8% 9.9% 14.3% 1.3%

2010 DHS Viewpoint Survey #42 

Same question. 74.3% 31.4% 42.9% 12.6% 7.0% 5.5% 0.6%

OIG FAMS #40 

I am given an opportunity to 

improve my skills in my 

organization. 

43.2% 9.8% 33.4% 21.0% 21.6% 14.2%

2010 DHS Viewpoint Survey #1 

I am given a real opportunity to 

improve my skills in my 

organization. 

61.7% 18.1% 43.6% 16.9% 15.7% 5.7%

OIG FAMS #41 

I feel encouraged to come up with 

new and better ways of doing 

things. 

36.1% 9.8% 26.3% 22.3% 24.7% 16.9%

2010 DHS Viewpoint Survey #3 

Same question. 55.0% 19.4% 35.6% 18.3% 17.8% 8.8%

OIG FAMS #42 

My work gives me a feeling of 

personal accomplishment. 

55.9% 17.5% 38.4% 17.4% 14.2% 12.5% 

2010 DHS Viewpoint Survey #4 

Same question. 70.6% 27.7% 42.9% 14.6% 9.6% 5.2% 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 108 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Percent 

Positive 

Strongly 

Agree Agree 

Neither 

Agree 

Nor 

Disagree 

Disagree Strongly 

Disagree 

Do 

Not 

Know 

OIG FAMS #43
 

My talents are used well in the 39.0% 9.9% 29.1% 20.3% 22.0% 18.7%
 

workplace.
 

2010 DHS Viewpoint Survey #11 55.2% 14.6% 40.6% 16.4% 16.2% 12.2% Same question. 

OIG FAMS #44
 

The people I work with cooperate 75.5% 17.8% 57.7% 14.5% 6.3% 3.7%
 

to get the job done. 

2010 DHS Viewpoint Survey #20 

Same question. 74.3% 22.9% 51.4% 12.9% 9.8% 3.0% 

OIG FAMS #45 

Creativity and innovation are 

rewarded. 

24.3% 5.8% 18.5% 32.0% 26.3% 17.5% 

2010 DHS Viewpoint Survey #32 

Same question. 39.6% 10.2% 29.4% 25.9% 19.0% 13.0% 2.7% 

Percent 

Positive 

Very 

Satisfied Satisfied 

Neither 

Satisfied 

Nor 

Dissatisfied 

Dissatisfied Very 

Dissatisfied 

OIG FAMS #46 

How satisfied are you with the 

recognition you receive for 

doing a good job? 

34.6% 8.2% 26.4% 24.7% 23.1% 17.6% 

2010 DHS Viewpoint Survey 

#65 51.0% 15.5% 35.5% 22.2% 17.6% 9.3% 

Same question. 

OIG FAMS #47 

How satisfied are you with your 

opportunity to get a better job 

in your organization? 

23.3% 5.3% 18.0% 24.5% 24.6% 27.5% 

2010 DHS Viewpoint Survey 

#67 40.3% 10.7% 29.6% 27.3% 18.2% 14.1% 

Same question. 

OIG FAMS #48 

Considering everything, how 

satisfied are you with your job? 

53.4% 14.4% 39.0% 21.6% 14.9% 10.1% 

2010 DHS Viewpoint Survey 

#69 

Same question. 

67.6% 22.9% 44.7% 16.7% 10.5% 5.2% 

Appendix H 

Select Questions – OIG FAMS Survey Compared to 2010 DHS-wide Survey 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 109 
 

Appendix I 

Survey Demographics 

Respondents by Race/National Origin 

Race/National Origin FAMS 

Workforce Survey Respondents 

American Indian or Alaska Native1

 1.1% 3.1% 

Asian1

 3.5% 2.3% 

Black or African-American 12.0% 11.8% 

Hispanic / Latino 11.3% 11.7% 

Native Hawaiian or 

Other Pacific Islander1 0.0% 0.8% 

Other / More than one race2

 0.4 N/A 

Other N/A 7.9% 

White 71.7% 78.8% 1 The limited size of these populations should be considered when interpreting survey results 


that list these demographic populations. 


2 Our survey did not have an option of “Other/More than one race.” Instead, respondents 


could select more than one option. 


Respondents by Gender 

Gender FAMS Workforce Survey Respondents 

Male 87.5% 87.7% 

Female 12.5% 12.3% 

Respondents by Age 

Age FAMS Workforce Survey Respondents 

29 or Younger 11.3% 6.2% 

30–39 37.1% 34.1% 

40–49 41.1% 47.1% 

50–59 8.3% 10.2% 

60 or Older 2.2% 2.4% 

Respondents by Pay Band 

Pay Band FAMS Workforce Survey Respondents 

D 0.1% 0.2% 

E 0.4% 0.6% 

F 2.7% 3.0% 

G 10.1% 4.5% 

H 9.1% 6.2% 

I 65.0% 70.0% 

J 8.8% 11.2% 

K 2.7% 3.3% 

L 0.2% 0.3% 

TSES 0.5% 0.7% 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 


Page 110
 
Appendix J 

Major Contributors to this Report 

William McCarron, Chief Inspector 

Jennifer A. Lindsey, Senior Inspector/Team Lead 

Paul Bergstrand, Senior Inspector 

Katherine Yutzey, Senior Inspector 

Jasmine K. Davis, Inspector 

Lindsay K. Clarke, Inspector 

Other contributors to the report 

Elizabeth Kingma, Senior Inspector 

Wayne Ekblad, Senior Inspector 

Shawntae Brown, Inspector 

Anne Cho, Inspector 

Nicholas Ketter, Inspector 

Vanetta Myrick, Inspector 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 111 
Appendix K 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security 

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff 

Deputy Chief of Staff 

General Counsel 

Executive Secretariat 

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 

TSA Audit Liaison 

Director of Local Affairs, Office of Intergovernmental Affairs 

Office of Management and Budget 

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress 

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as 

appropriate 

Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service 

Page 112 
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COPIES 

To obtain additional copies of this report, please call the Office of Inspector General 

(OIG) at (202)254-4100, fax your request to (202)254-4305, or e-mail your request to 

our OIG Office of Public Affairs at DHS-OIG.OfficePublicAffairs@dhs.gov. For 

additional information, visit our OIG website at www.oig.dhs.gov or follow us on Twitter 

@dhsoig. 

OIG HOTLINE 

To report alleged fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement, or any other kind of criminal 

or noncriminal misconduct relative to Department of Homeland Security programs and 

operations: 

• Call our Hotline at 1-800-323-8603 

 

• Fax the complaint directly to us at (202)254-4292 

• E-mail us at DHSOIGHOTLINE@dhs.gov; or 

• Write to us at: 

DHS Office of Inspector General/MAIL STOP 2600, 

Attention: Office of Investigation - Hotline, 

245 Murray Drive SW, Building 410 

Washington, DC 20528 

The OIG seeks to protect the identity of each writer and caller.