DATELINE—PHOENIX VA—“THE HALLWAY STRUT”: At the Phoenix VA, substantiated findings involving racial discrimination and sexual misconduct apparently do not end leadership careers—they improve posture, add swagger, and come with continued authority over the same department, while taxpayers are left paying for complaints, investigations, litigation, and liability. Accountability may have left the building, but “The Hallway Strut” is still making rounds.
WHAT IS THE HALLWAY STRUT, YOU MIGHT ASK?
It is what happens when VA Police Leadership Officials walk through VA facilities like they own the place—belly out, head high, smug look fully locked in—not because they cleared their names, but because the misconduct was substantiated and leadership still failed to do anything meaningful about it.
THEY SUBSTANTIATED IT. LEADERSHIP DID NOTHING...EFFECTIVE
Imagine working in a place where Law Enforcement Leadership Officials can become the subjects of substantiated racial-harassment and sexual-misconduct findings and still carry a gun, wear a badge, and supervise employees.
We’re talking about simulated sexual acts in the workplace and racial jokes—not forgotten paperwork or an improperly formatted email.
- You’d be smug too.
- You’d walk around chest first like you cracked the federal employment code.
Because at that point, you’re not just one of “The Untouchables”—you’re one of “The Untestifiables.”
Inappropriate Sexual “Sign” Language and “Hands-On” Communication
According to agency records later included in an EEO investigation, a VA Police Leadership Official, while in full uniform and standing in front of multiple officers, performed a simulated masturbation gesture toward an unsuspecting female employee on May 17, 2023.
Apparently, while basic human decency was missing from the training curriculum, the “hands-on” portion was unforgettable.
Phoenix VA Health Care System (PVAHCS) "Executive Leadership" substantiated the allegation involving the gesture on September 20, 2023.
And the documented response for the Police “Leadership” Official?
A simple Letter of Counseling—not formal discipline.
But wait—let’s take alook at VA Handbook 5021, page I-A-8, “Table of Examples of Offenses and Penalties”:
- Sexual harassment: The handbook identifies a potential penalty ranging from reprimand to removal for a first offense, seven days’ suspension to removal for a second offense, and fourteen days’ suspension to removal for a third offense.
Apparently, the disciplinary table was treated less like guidance and more like optional reading.
Substantiated Racial Discrimination: Mockery, Stereotypes, and Open Contempt
On October 13, 2023, the Office of Employment Discrimination Complaint Adjudication (OEDCA) issued a Final Agency Decision (VA Case No. 200P-644-2022-147530) finding that a Black officer had been subjected to a hostile work environment based on race and that the Agency was liable.
A Leadership Official walked past an office, saw three Black officers having a quiet conversation, and apparently decided their race was sufficient material for an impromptu comedy routine:
No confrontation. No disturbance. No actual problem.
Just three Black officers existing in the same room—and a Leadership Official who thought workplace racism needed a punchline.
Later, the same official mocked the officer’s professional suit, tie, and demeanor by sarcastically referring to him as “Mr. Tibbs,” an outdated reference to In the Heat of the Night (1967).
But wait—let’s take another look at VA Handbook 5021:
- Discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, marital status, political affiliation, or disability: The handbook identifies a potential penalty ranging from reprimand to removal for a first offense, seven days’ suspension to removal for a second offense, and fourteen days’ suspension to removal for a third offense.
Editor’s Note: Honestly, you’d strut too if you managed to rack up back-to-back substantiations involving sexual misconduct and a race-based hostile work environment within 30 days—and the only apparent consequence was a stronger sense of confidence.
And The Black officer?
He prevailed in a historic racial-discrimination case under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 involving a former employer - but nobody cared because he was just an average powerless Black Man.
According to accounts later provided to the petition organizers, department leadership told new officers that his case had been “dismissed with prejudice”—technically true, but stripped of the part that mattered.
The dismissal followed a settlement reached after a full EEO investigation and a substantiated finding of racial discrimination.
That detail apparently did not fit the preferred storyline.
So new officers were left with the impression that the former Black officer’s case was meritless, while the investigation, substantiation, and settlement quietly disappeared from the retelling.
He was visible enough to stereotype, mock, and discriminate against—but somehow became invisible the moment accountability was due.
The Ralph Ellison effect:
- Highly visible as a target, completely invisible as a victim.
The “File and Forget” Executive Protection Plan
Because nothing says “executive accountability” like putting substantiated misconduct in a folder and hoping the filing cabinet retires before the supervisor does.
- They confirmed both cases.
- They stamped both cases.
- They filed both cases away.
And then they did absolutely nothing effective about them.
- No demotions.
- No removal from supervisory authority.
- No meaningful corrective action.
Instead, officials associated with substantiated findings involving racial discrimination and sexual misconduct remained in positions of power.
- The findings were real.
- The leadership response was decorative.
PVAHCS “Executive Leadership” did not remove the liabilities.
They gave the liabilities subordinates.
That is not an oversight.
That is a choice.
BEHIND THE SWAGGER: OSP’S INHERITED LIABILITY
The Office of Operations, Security, and Preparedness inherited this problem when responsibility for VA Police operations moved under OSP beginning in 2025/2026.
But inheritance does not require retention.
By June 20, 2026, these concerns were no longer confined to Phoenix. OSP leadership had been directly notified of the substantiated findings, continued supervisory authority, credibility concerns, retaliation allegations, and resulting institutional liability.
The problem had reached the office responsible for oversight—and the officials associated with it remained in place.
OSP cannot plausibly claim the problem was unknown.
- The same leadership concerns.
- The same complaints.
- The same taxpayers funding the consequences.
Consequences that meaningful and effective corrective action might have prevented.
SO PERHAPS THE HALLWAY STRUT IS NOT...CONFIDENCE?
Perhaps it is simply proof that one administration passed the liability to another—and OSP decided to keep it.
The liability reached D.C.
The Hallway Strut remained in Phoenix.
- So let them keep walking.
- Let the bellies lead.
- Let the smirks stay in place.
- PVAHCS “Executive Leadership” created the problem—and OSP inherited the responsibility to address it.
The strut is not proof that someone won. It is proof that the public is still waiting to learn what Phoenix VA “Executive Leadership”—and now OSP—intend to do about it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerned Citizens AZ Investigative Team – Ensuring that bellies can strut the VA hallways with confidence while covered in Giglio-Impairment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
READER NOTICE
Concerned Citizens Media encourages readers to independently verify the information contained in this publication, including through public records, official sources, or AI-assisted research tools. For additional information or clarification, readers are encouraged to contact appropriate Department of Veterans Affairs officials or their local VA facility directly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER
Any attempt to retaliate against current or former VA employees, officers, contractors, or witnesses for engaging in protected whistleblower or EEO activity related to the matters discussed herein may constitute a violation of federal law, including 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)–(9), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and applicable VA anti‑retaliation policies. Documentation, reporting, or public discussion of substantiated misconduct, harassment, discrimination, or policy violations is protected activity.