TRANSPORTATION 

SECURITY

TSA Could Strengthen 

Oversight of Allegations of 

Employee Misconduct

Statement of Stephen M. Lord, Director 

Homeland Security and Justice Issues

Testimony 

Before the Subcommittees on Oversight 

and Management Efficiency and 

Transportation Security, Committee on 

Homeland Security, House of 

Representatives

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT

Wednesday July 31, 2013

GAO-13-756T

United States Government Accountability Office
 

Page 1 GAO-13-756T 

Chairmen Duncan and Hudson, Ranking Members Barber and Richmond, 

and Members of the Subcommittees:

I am pleased to be here to discuss the findings of our report issued 

yesterday assessing the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) 

efforts to address employee misconduct.1 TSA employs approximately 

56,000 transportation security officers (TSO) and other TSA personnel to 

ensure the security of the traveling public at more than 450 TSAregulated airports nationwide.2 News stories in recent years have 

highlighted several high-profile allegations of misconduct by TSA 

employees, including TSOs being involved in theft and drug-smuggling 

activities, as well as circumventing mandatory screening procedures for 

passengers and baggage. For example, in 2011, a TSO at the Orlando 

International Airport pleaded guilty to federal charges of embezzlement 

and theft for stealing more than 80 laptop computers and other electronic 

devices, valued at $80,000, from passenger luggage. TSOs engaging in 

misconduct raise security concerns because these employees are 

charged with helping to ensure the security of our nation’s aviation 

system. 

The process of addressing TSA employee misconduct involves various 

components within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). For 

example, depending on the facts and circumstances of a case, the DHS 

Office of Inspector General (OIG), TSA Office of Inspection (OOI), or TSA 

Office of Security Operations (OSO) may conduct an investigation into 

allegations of TSA employee misconduct. OSO generally adjudicates 

cases at airports—that is, determines whether the evidence is sufficient to 

propose and sustain a charge of misconduct and determines the 

appropriate penalty. The Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), an 

independent office that TSA established in 2010 to provide greater 

consistency in misconduct penalty determinations, adjudicates a more 

 

1

GAO, Transportation Security: TSA Could Strengthen Monitoring of Allegations of 

Employee Misconduct, GAO-13-624 (Washington, D.C.: July 30, 2013).

2

The total number of TSA employees at TSA-regulated airports represents personnel 

within the Office of Security Operations, such as TSOs, supervisory TSOs, lead TSOs, 

transportation security managers, transportation security inspectors, and behavior

detection officers. This statement is focused on TSA personnel at TSA-regulated airports. 

We excluded TSA employees at headquarters, the Federal Air Marshal Service, regional 

offices, and other nonairport locations, and do not include private sector screeners 

employed by contractors providing screening services at airports participating in TSA’s 

Screening Partnership Program.

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-756T 

specialized set of cases, such as misconduct involving senior-level TSA 

employees at airports and other locations.

My testimony this morning will address the key findings from the report on 

TSA’s efforts to address employee misconduct that we issued yesterday.3

Specifically, like the report, my statement will address (1) data on TSA 

employee misconduct cases and (2) TSA efforts to manage and oversee 

the investigations and adjudications process.

For the report, we reviewed standard operating procedures, policy 

statements, and guidance for staff charged with investigating and 

adjudicating allegations of employee misconduct, and analyzed TSA 

misconduct data from fiscal years 2010 through 2012. While we identified 

some limitations with the data, we found the data sufficiently reliable for 

providing general information on the nature and characteristics of 

employee misconduct. We compared TSA processes for investigations 

and adjudications with TSA policies and procedures and Standards for 

Internal Control in the Federal Government.

4 In addition, we selected a 

sample of 7 airports, based on variances in number and type of past 

cases of employee misconduct and geographic dispersion, from the 

approximately 450 TSA-regulated airports nationwide, and conducted site 

visits and interviews with TSA officials responsible for addressing 

employee misconduct. While not generalizable, the airport interviews 

provided us with the perspectives of TSA officials responsible for 

conducting TSA employee misconduct investigations or adjudications. We 

also analyzed a random, nongeneralizable sample of 50 allegations 

referred from the DHS OIG to TSA to identify follow up actions. We 

conducted this work in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. More detailed information on the scope and 

methodology can be found in our published report.

 

3

GAO-13-624. 

4

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1, 1999).
 

Page 3 GAO-13-756T 

In July 2013, we reported that TSA investigated and adjudicated 

approximately 9,600 cases of employee misconduct from fiscal years 

2010 through 2012, according to TSA employee misconduct data that we 

analyzed.5 Two offense categories accounted for about half of all cases—

(1) attendance and leave, which accounted for 32 percent; and (2) 

screening and security, which accounted for 20 percent. Charges for 

screening and security-related incidents pertain to violating standard 

operating procedures, including not conducting security or equipment 

checks, and allowing patrons or baggage to bypass screening. TSA 

developed a Table of Offenses and Penalties that delineates common 

employee charges, along with a suggested range of penalties. Of the 

cases that we analyzed, 47 percent resulted in letters of reprimand, which 

describe unacceptable conduct that is the basis for a disciplinary action; 

31 percent resulted in suspensions of a definite duration; and 17 percent 

resulted in the employee’s removal from TSA. The remaining cases 

covered a variety of outcomes, including suspensions of an indefinite 

duration.

In our July 2013 report, we found that TSA has taken steps to help 

manage the investigations and adjudications process, such as creating 

OPR in 2010 to provide greater consistency in misconduct penalty 

determinations and providing training for TSA staff at airports responsible 

for investigating and adjudicating allegations of employee misconduct. 

While TSA has taken these steps, we reported weaknesses in four areas 

related to monitoring of employee misconduct cases: (1) verifying that 

TSA staff at airports comply with policies and procedures for adjudicating 

misconduct, (2) recording case information on all adjudication decisions, 

(3) tracking the time taken to complete all phases of the investigations 

and adjudications process, and (4) identifying allegations not adjudicated 

by the agency.

Verifying that TSA staff comply with policies and procedures for 

adjudicating misconduct. TSA does not have a process for reviewing 

misconduct cases to verify that TSA staff at airports are complying with 

policies and procedures for adjudicating employee misconduct. According 

to TSA policies and procedures, adjudicating officials need to collect 

 

5

Employee misconduct cases refer to allegations for which TSA has completed an 

investigation and adjudication.

TSA Investigated and 

Adjudicated 

Approximately 9,600 

Misconduct Cases 

from Fiscal Years 

2010 through 2012

TSA Has Taken Steps 

to Help Manage the 

Investigations and 

Adjudications 

Process, but Could 

Develop Additional 

Procedures to Better 

Monitor Employee 

Misconduct Cases
 

Page 4 GAO-13-756T 

sufficient evidence to support penalty charges and consider factors, such 

as an employee’s disciplinary track record, in making a penalty 

determination. However, some misconduct cases have been overturned 

or the penalties reduced through the appeals process because staff at 

airports had not supported the charges with sufficient evidence, among 

other things. For example, from January 2011 to June 13, 2013, the OPR 

Appellate Board—which reviews appeals made by TSOs on certain 

actions, such as suspensions of 15 days or more—either overturned or 

reduced the penalty in 125 out of 836 cases (15 percent). A senior TSA 

official agreed that TSA would benefit from a review process to help verify 

that staff at airports are making adjudication decisions in conformance 

with policies and procedures. Without a review process, it is difficult for 

TSA to provide reasonable assurance that cases have been adjudicated 

properly and that risk to the agency is mitigated accordingly. Therefore, in 

our July 2013 report, we recommended that TSA establish a process to 

conduct reviews of misconduct cases to verify that TSA staff at airports 

are complying with policies and procedures for adjudicating employee 

misconduct. DHS concurred and stated that TSA is developing a process 

to provide increased auditing of disciplinary records. TSA expects to 

develop this process by March 31, 2014.

Recording case information on all adjudication decisions. TSA does 

not record the results of all misconduct cases that have been adjudicated 

by TSA airport staff in its Integrated Database, which is TSA’s centralized 

system for tracking and managing employee misconduct cases. For 

example, the agency does not record all cases that resulted in a 

corrective action, which are actions that are administrative in nature, such 

as a letter of counseling. Specifically, we found that five out of the seven 

airports included in our sample do not consistently track corrective actions 

in the Integrated Database. A senior TSA official agreed that there is a 

strong need for TSA to clarify that TSA staff at airports should record 

corrective actions in the database. Recording all outcomes in the 

Integrated Database would help provide a centralized, institutional record 

on past misconduct. It would also enable managers to follow a 

progressive discipline approach, which is the process of taking 

progressively more severe action, when appropriate, until the 

unacceptable conduct is corrected or the employee is removed from the 

agency. Thus, in our July 2013 report, we recommended that TSA 

develop and issue guidance to the field clarifying the need for TSA 

officials at airports to record all misconduct case outcomes in the 

Integrated Database. DHS concurred and stated that TSA will develop 

and disseminate additional guidance to the field to ensure that all 
 

Page 5 GAO-13-756T 

outcomes are recorded in the database. TSA expects to develop and 

disseminate additional guidance to the field by August 30, 2013.

Tracking the time taken to complete all phases of the investigations 

and adjudications process. While TSA has established standards for 

the amount of time to complete the investigations and adjudications 

process, the agency has not required TSA staff at airports to track their 

performance against the standards. Specifically, our review of TSA data 

from the Integrated Database on misconduct cases handled by TSA 

airport staff identified that TSA does not capture information on the 

amount of time taken to complete the investigations and adjudications 

process, including the number of days to complete an investigation and 

issue a notice of proposed action. Tracking cycle times would provide 

TSA with operational information, such as differences in processing time 

by, among other things, type of case, and could allow the agency to 

identify any delays, such as challenges associated with evidence 

collection. According to TSA senior officials, tracking cycle times for 

investigations and adjudications completed by airport staff would also 

provide valuable information on the differences in case processing time 

frames across airports. In our July 2013 report, we recommended that 

TSA establish an agency-wide policy to track cycle times in the 

investigations and adjudications process. DHS concurred and stated that 

TSA will develop a process and mechanism to track cycle times for 

misconduct cases handled by TSA airport staff. TSA expects to develop a 

process and mechanism by March 31, 2014.

Identifying allegations not adjudicated by TSA. TSA does not have 

reconciliation procedures—that is, procedures to follow up on completed 

misconduct investigations to ensure that the agency has identified cases 

requiring adjudication. According to a random sample of 50 allegations 

referred from DHS OIG to TSA in fiscal year 2012, we found that 2 were 

not adjudicated by TSA. As a result of our review, TSA made adjudication 

decisions on these allegations, one of which resulted in a 14-day 

suspension for the employee because of disruptive behavior in the 

workplace. The results from our sample cannot be generalized to the 

entire population of over 1,300 allegations referred from DHS OIG to TSA 

in fiscal year 2012; however, it raises questions as to whether there could 

be additional instances of allegations referred to TSA in this population 

that the agency has not adjudicated. A senior TSA official agreed that a 

reconciliation process would offer benefits to TSA as there may be other 

allegations the agency is unaware of that have been investigated but not 

adjudicated. Therefore, in our July 2013 report, we recommended that 

TSA develop reconciliation procedures to identify allegations of employee 
 

Page 6 GAO-13-756T 

misconduct not previously addressed through adjudication. DHS 

concurred and stated that TSA will implement a reconciliation process to 

ensure that completed misconduct investigations are adjudicated. TSA 

expects to implement a reconciliation process by March 31, 2014.

Chairmen Duncan and Hudson, Ranking Members Barber and Richmond, 

and Members of the Subcommittees, this concludes my prepared 

statement. I look forward to responding to any questions that you may 

have.

For questions about this statement, please contact Steve Lord at (202) 

512-4379 or lords@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this statement. Individuals making key contributions to this statement 

include Jessica Lucas-Judy (Assistant Director), Anthony C. Fernandez, 

Sally Gilley, Tom Lombardi, Lerone Reid, and Kelly Rubin.

GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(441169)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.