Open Letter to Reginald G. A. Neal, Ed.D. | How Phoenix VA Police Leadership Failed Women
Open Letter To Reginald G. A. Neal, Ed.D.
Assistant Secretary
Office of Operations, Security, and Preparedness
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
SUBJECT: What Happened to the Women After Phoenix VA Police Retained and Elevated a Supervisor with Substantiated Racial and Sexual Misconduct?
Mr. Neal,
You lead the Department of Veterans Affairs office responsible for nationwide security, law-enforcement oversight, VA Police operations, and the standards governing the safety of employees, Veterans, and visitors.
The Phoenix Veterans Affairs Police Department now presents a direct test of those responsibilities.
This is no longer the story of one complaint or one employee.
It is the story of what happened after the Department received formal warning that harassment, discrimination, and management failure had already taken root inside a federal police department—and then allowed the same leadership structure to remain in place.
A former Black officer proved that the department had a discrimination and harassment problem.
Yet he experienced what this letter calls the Ralph Ellison effect: visible when leadership could scrutinize, blame, or publicly reframe him, but effectively invisible when his proof demanded accountability and institutional reform.
The Women show what happened after leadership failed to correct it.
A Note on the Record
This letter distinguishes among formally substantiated findings, documented employment actions, allegations still undergoing adjudication, and experiences reported by employees or witnesses.
Formal findings are identified as substantiated. Pending matters are identified as allegations. Reported experiences are presented as matters requiring independent review.
I. THE WARNING THE VA ALREADY HAD
Two Substantiated Findings—One Supervisory Official
Within twenty-three days, two separate VA processes substantiated serious misconduct involving the same Phoenix VA Police supervisory official.
These were not rumors, social-media accusations, or unresolved personal disputes. They were formal Agency findings involving inappropriate conduct of a sexual nature and a race-based hostile work environment.
- Despite both findings, the official remained in supervisory law-enforcement authority.
A Young Female Employee, the Sexual Act Performed Behind Her, and HPP Case No. 6210
On September 20, 2023, Phoenix VA Health Care System "Executive Leadership" issued a formal memorandum following a Harassment Prevention Program (HPP) fact-finding connected to HPP Case No. 6210.
Simulated Masturbation—And the Supervisor Kept His Power
The matter began as a written sexual-harassment allegation involving an inappropriate comment, gesture, and action of a sexual nature committed in the presence of multiple police officers.
The reported conduct involved a supervisory police official pretending to spit into his hand as though applying lubrication and then simulating masturbation behind a young female VA employee from outside the police department as she walked away.
- She had no idea what was occurring behind her.
A male employee witnessed the conduct, was offended by it, and reported what he had observed. His actions were consistent with the reporting framework established by VA Directive 5979 for employees who witness unwelcome workplace conduct.
Following the fact-finding, Phoenix VHA "Executive Leadership" formally concluded that the official had engaged in inappropriate conduct of a "sexual nature." Management then stated that corrective action had been taken.
The known response was a Letter of Counseling (issued September 15, 2023).
- The official was not demoted.
- He was not terminated.
- He was not removed from supervision.
- The young employee returned to her regular workplace outside the police department.
- The supervisor who performed the act retained authority over the police personnel who witnessed it.
That response sent a dangerous institutional message: even substantiated sexualized misconduct behind an unsuspecting young female employee did not necessarily cost a police supervisor his power.
The Black Officer Who Proved the Department Had a Problem
Twenty-three days later, on October 13, 2023, the Department’s Office of Employment Discrimination Complaint Adjudication issued a Final Agency Decision involving the same supervisory police official.
The Black officer did not merely allege that the workplace was discriminatory.
He proved it.
OEDCA found that racially related conduct occurred repeatedly over nearly two years and originated from a single supervisor who held authority over the Black officer.
The adjudicative record included racial comments and references involving:
- An “Apples & Brown Sugar” soap reference made in a racial context;
- A “Black Panther Party” remark associated with a Black employee;
- A “Mr. Tibbs” reference invoking the Black police character from "In the Heat of the Night" (1967);
- Witness testimony describing a broader hostile environment toward officers of color.
OEDCA concluded that the officer had been subjected to an objectively hostile work environment based on race discrimination.
It further found that management knew or should have known about the conduct but failed to investigate or take prompt and effective corrective action.
The Department was therefore held liable.
The required Notice to Employees stated plainly:
- A violation of Title VII occurred at this facility.
The Department was ordered to provide make-whole relief, address compensatory damages, pay eligible attorney fees and costs, restore qualifying leave, provide specialized EEO training, consider disciplinary action, and implement measures intended to prevent recurrence.
The decision also made one distinction unmistakably clear:
- Training is not considered disciplinary action.
The Discriminator Sat on the Hiring Panel: Non-Selection
The non-selection claim was not sustained because the Black officer did not produce sufficient evidence proving that discriminatory motive caused the selection outcome.
But insufficient proof is not the same as a clean panel.
The same supervisor later found responsible for creating a race-based hostile work environment had already sat in judgment of the Black officer’s career.
The scoring provides a striking example.
On a Graham v. Connor question, one panelist scored the Black officer’s answer a 5 out of 5 and described it as a “perfect example.” Another panelist scored the same example a 4 out of 5, calling it a good demonstration of his knowledge.
The supervisor later tied to the proven hostile environment - based on race - scored that same answer a 1 out of 5 and reduced the officer’s explanation to a single word:
- “Fight.”
He also assigned the Black officer a 0 out of 5 in another category without providing any explanation. Overall, one panelist scored the officer 94, while the supervisor scored him 81.
The official did not enter the story after the EEO dispute began.
He had already exercised direct influence over the Black officer’s advancement.
OEDCA found that the evidence did not meet the legal burden required to prove discriminatory non-selection. That ruling did not declare the scoring fair, impartial, or free from suspicion.
- The non-selection claim failed for insufficient proof—not because the panel was cleared.
- The race-based hostile work environment was proven, and the official who helped judge the Black officer’s career was the same official whose discriminatory conduct was later substantiated.
Management Failure Was Part of the Finding
The Final Agency Decision did not place responsibility solely upon one supervisor.
It found a broader management failure.
OEDCA determined that coworkers—including members of management—were aware that the supervisory official was known to make racial comments. The statements were made publicly and in the presence of others.
Management nevertheless failed to investigate or take prompt and effective corrective action.
The decision further explained that inadequate discipline can communicate that harassment is acceptable, that management supports the harasser, and that similar conduct may be repeated with impunity.
That warning was not theoretical.
What happened afterward is now the issue before OSP.
II. WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THE WARNING
The Black Officer Was the Warning—The Women Lived With the Consequences
The Black officer’s case should have served as an early warning to VHA and OSP. Instead, Phoenix VA Police leadership advanced a different narrative: that he fabricated the allegations and was merely “trying to get back at them.”
But for that narrative to be true, this “powerless Black man”—as Afroman once described himself in a news interview—would somehow have had to deceive multiple VA officials, agency attorneys, federal lawyers, investigators, and adjudicators responsible for reviewing and defending the Agency’s position.
The documented findings tell a very different story.
The Final Agency Decision Was Ignored and Treated As Fiction
By October 2023, Phoenix leadership possessed a formal federal-agency adjudication establishing that:
- A supervisor had created a race-based hostile work environment;
- The conduct continued for nearly two years;
- Management knew or should have known;
- Management failed to investigate or take effective corrective action; and
- The Agency was legally responsible.
At nearly the same time, leadership possessed a separate substantiated finding involving simulated masturbation behind a young female employee.
Leadership therefore had both notice and opportunity.
It had the opportunity to remove the official from supervisory authority, restructure the command environment, restore confidence, and demonstrate that harassment would carry meaningful consequences.
Instead, the supervisory structure remained largely intact.
The women who remained inside that environment inherited the consequences.
III. THE WOMEN WHO SPOKE UP, LEFT, OR ENDURED THE CULTURE
The Beloved Mother-Figure Dispatcher—Until She Filed a Harassment Complaint
HPP Case No. 7116 involved a long-serving female dispatcher regarded by coworkers as a mother figure within the department.
Supporting materials state that she was required to work alongside a male employee who disclosed a sexual addiction and repeatedly highlighted passages from a book on the subject in her presence. Her complaints later produced substantiated HPP findings.
First the Sexual-Addiction Disclosures—Then a Handgun in His Backpack
On April 4, 2024, the same employee reportedly discovered a handgun inside his own backpack and self-reported bringing it into the workplace.
VA OIG Accepted the Complaint—Then Referred It Back to a Department Already Marked by Substantiated Sexual Harassment
The firearm incident was reported under VA OIG Hotline Case No. 2024-03707-HL-1220 and referred back for departmental review. The related workplace-harassment allegations were addressed separately through HPP Case No. 7116.
Questions remain about how the firearm was handled, what corrective action followed, and whether the response protected the dispatcher and other employees.
- The dispatcher ultimately left and retired.
- The employee connected to her complaints departed.
The command culture remained.
A "4-Foot-11" Latina Police Officer Who Reported the Same Leadership Structure
A 4-foot-11 Latina police officer later reported harassment and intimidation involving the same supervisory official who already had substantiated racial and sexual-misconduct findings.
Her report triggered an HPP review, a no-contact order, and an announcement that the official would be placed into a non-supervisory role.
She Lost Her Badge and Authority and Spent 300 Days on Administrative Duty—While the Supervisor She Reported Kept His Power
The official retained rank, access to police records, and influence within the command structure. The promised separation appeared stronger on paper than in practice.
Soon afterward, the Latina officer:
- Lost her badge, credentials, and arrest authority;
- Was removed from normal police operations;
- Spent 300 days on administrative duty; and
- Reported isolation, gossip, and damage to her professional standing.
- Her badge, credentials, arrest authority, and duties were eventually restored.
Her pending EEO allegations are not presented here as a final Title VII finding. But the documented sequence demands scrutiny:
- She reported a supervisor with substantiated misconduct findings. He retained power. She lost her police authority for 300 days.
That is why corrective action must be measured by results—not paperwork.
OSP Chief Patrick Hernandez’s February 11, 2026 Visit—The Power Imbalance Was Standing in Front of Him
On February 11, 2026, Patrick Hernandez visited the Phoenix VA Police Department and personally observed its command environment.
As Hernandez addressed department personnel, the supervisor reported by the Latina officer stood directly behind her.
The scene does not establish what Hernandez personally understood, concluded, or approved. It does establish that national leadership had an opportunity to observe the command structure in practice—including whether the announced separation and protective measures had produced meaningful distance between the officer and the supervisor she reported.
The Latina officer nevertheless continued documenting and reporting her concerns through HPP, EEO, Union, and administrative processes.
The question is not whether she could endure the power structure:
- The question is why she was left to defend her career inside a command system that had already been warned about the official she reported.
The Female Officers Who Walked Away
Materials submitted to OSP describe multiple female officers who transferred, resigned, or left for other employment after experiencing or witnessing harassment, hostility, inappropriate comments, or policy concerns.
Some spoke privately but never filed formal complaints. Others appear to have concluded that leaving was safer and less professionally damaging than entering a prolonged internal process.
Not every account resulted in a final adjudicated finding. But the departures are verifiable workforce events, and OSP possesses the records necessary to determine whether complaints, supervisory treatment, or concerns about professional consequences contributed to those decisions..
The pattern remains difficult to ignore:
- Women left, transferred, retired, or remained silent—while officials associated with substantiated findings retained rank and influence.
The Women Who Stayed Quiet
Not every woman files an EEO complaint or enters the Harassment Prevention Program. Some remain silent, transfer, resign, or wait for retirement rather than endure years of affidavits, interrogatories, humiliation, and being labeled difficult or "unable to take a joke":
- Silence does not prove that nothing happened—especially in a department already marked by multiple substantiated findings.
It may show that employees learned what speaking up could cost.
The Pattern Is the Point
These women did not report the same conduct, identify the same employee, or enter the same legal process.
That is what makes the pattern harder to dismiss.
One woman became the unwitting subject of simulated masturbation by a police supervisor. A long-serving dispatcher obtained substantiated HPP findings and left. A Latina officer reported harassment, lost her badge and arrest authority for 300 days, and fought for restoration. Other women transferred, resigned, retired, or remained silent.
- Different women. Different incidents. Different processes.
Yet the institutional result remained strikingly similar:
- The women absorbed the consequences while the command structure—and officials associated with substantiated misconduct—retained power.
One complaint can be called a conflict.
One departure can be called a personal choice.
But repeated reports, departures, silence, and loss of authority after the Department had already been formally warned are no longer isolated events.
They are the record of what Phoenix leadership allowed to continue.
IV. CORRECTIVE ACTION WITHOUT REMOVAL FROM AUTHORITY
Corrective Action Must Be Measured by Results
The specific personnel action imposed following the Title VII finding has not been publicly disclosed.
What is observable is that the official was not demoted, terminated, removed from supervision, or permanently disqualified from commanding the department.
Corrective action cannot be measured by completed training, a counseling letter, a temporary reassignment, a no-contact order, or management declaring a matter closed.
It must be measured by results.
- Did the response protect the young female employee, the dispatcher, and the Latina officer?
- Did it remove the official associated with the substantiated misconduct?
- Did it prevent recurrence—or did women leave, retire, lose authority, or remain silent while the official retained power?
Whatever action occurred privately, it did not permanently remove him from supervisory law-enforcement authority.
Substantiated Sexual Misconduct. Proven Racial Harassment. Elevated to Acting Chief—Is This the Face of VA Police?
The Agency did not merely retain the official after the substantiated findings.
It repeatedly elevated him to the highest local police-command position.
As recently as July 13, 2026, the Agency appointed the same official to serve as Acting Chief of Police during Police leadership's absence.
Acting Chief Before the Same Phoenix VHA Executives Who Failed to Stop the Misconduct
That temporary command role placed him in a position to represent the police service before facility executives—including many of the same Phoenix VA executives who held authority during the earlier pre-consolidation periods of harassment, discrimination, and management failure.
This was not an isolated designation.
Repeatedly Elevated—Even While New Harassment Allegations Were Under Review
The official had served as Acting Chief on prior occasions in 2025, including during periods in which additional harassment allegations were under active review.
Phoenix VHA Executive and Police leadership therefore did more than decline to remove him:
- They repeatedly entrusted him with temporary command of the entire police department.
The documented progression was not:
- Substantiation followed by removal from authority.
It was:
- Substantiation. Counseling. Continued supervision. Repeated elevation.
The Message Sent to Women
A young woman could become the unwitting subject of simulated masturbation by a supervisor..
A dispatcher could report harassment, obtain substantiated findings, and still leave.
A Latina officer could report harassment and then spend 300 days without her badge and arrest authority.
Other women could transfer, resign, retire, or remain silent.
Yet the official associated with two major substantiated findings could continue supervising, participating in investigations, fact-findings, influencing careers, remaining within the command structure, and serving as Acting Chief.
Whether intended or not, the institutional message is difficult to avoid:
- The people who report may lose their position, peace, authority, or career momentum.
- The people already in power may keep theirs.
V. THE CONSEQUENCES OF RETENTION
Federal Litigation, Settlement, and Public Expense
The Department’s Final Agency Decision ordered make-whole relief, a compensatory-damages process, eligible attorney fees and costs, and corrective action after finding a race-based hostile work environment and Agency liability.
The Black officer then pursued a federal civil action. The case was resolved through a negotiated settlement, with the Department represented by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona.
Management failure became federal litigation, settlement expense, attorney-fee exposure, administrative cost, and financial consequences borne by the government.
Yet the supervisory official associated with the substantiated conduct remained in authority.
The Black Officer’s Record Was Reframed Department-Wide
During an August 22, 2025 department-wide Microsoft Teams meeting, police leadership stated that the Black officer’s federal lawsuit had been “dismissed with prejudice.”
- That statement was accurate in isolation—but materially incomplete.
The dismissal followed a negotiated settlement. It was not a judicial ruling that his allegations were false, fabricated, or without merit.
Leadership also omitted that the Department’s own adjudicative office had already found a race-based hostile work environment, held the Agency liable, and concluded that management failed to investigate or take prompt and effective corrective action..
By announcing the dismissal while omitting the settlement and substantiated discrimination finding, leadership presented the officer’s case in a manner capable of making him appear defeated, dishonest, or meritless.
The department was told how the lawsuit ended:
- It was not told what the Department had already found—or that the dismissal followed settlement.
The Black Officer Was Proven Right—But the Institution Did Not Change
The Black officer’s case established that the department had a discrimination and harassment problem, that management failed to act, and that the Agency was liable.
The settlement resolved his individual litigation.
- It did not correct the command culture.
The subsequent reports involving women suggest that the Department treated his case as a liability to close—not a warning requiring institutional reform.
VI. GIGLIO, CREDIBILITY, AND COMMAND SUITABILITY
A Police Supervisor Is Not an Ordinary Employee
The documented findings raise serious questions concerning government-witness credibility, command suitability, and potential impeachment-information obligations.
Does OSP Maintain Its Own Giglio/Brady Tracking System—and Could It Have Exposed This Credibility Risk Earlier?
If OSP maintains no such system, that absence presents its own command-risk question. It does not justify ignoring potential impeachment information affecting the credibility of a federal police official.
The record includes substantiated racial harassment, substantiated sexualized workplace misconduct, disputed or inconsistent accounts, continued participation in police operations, and repeated service as Acting Chief.
Such information may require preservation, evaluation, referral, or disclosure when the official serves as a witness, investigator, affiant, case agent, or source of disputed facts..
The potential consequences extend to:
- Arrests and investigations;
- Criminal prosecutions;
- Government-witness credibility;
- Brady and Giglio disclosures;
- Internal-affairs and disciplinary findings; and
- Public confidence in VA Police.
At minimum, OSP should direct an independent review to determine whether the documented findings constitute potential impeachment information requiring preservation, credibility assessment, prosecutorial referral, or disclosure when material.
VII. OSP NOTICE AND NATIONAL COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY
Senior OSP Notice Has Been Established
- OSP’s awareness is documented—not presumed.
On October 16, 2025, Ian M. Dinesen, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for OSP, confirmed in writing that the submitted concerns had already been referred to OSP’s Investigations Division. He later "acknowledged receipt" of additional materials concerning Phoenix VA Police.
By then, the record included:
- A formal Title VII violation;
- Substantiated inappropriate sexual conduct involving simulated masturbation behind a young female VA employee;
- Adjudicated management failure;
- Separate HPP findings involving a female dispatcher;
- The Latina officer’s ongoing loss of police authority;
- Federal litigation and settlement, and
- The continued retention of the same supervisory official.
While the same supervisory official continued to retain authority and receive Acting Chief appointments.
- Notice was established.
- The underlying command risks remained unresolved.
The Matter Is No Longer Local
The underlying conduct may have preceded your appointment.
The decision to leave its consequences uncorrected now belongs to the national command structure you lead.
When an official associated with proven racial harassment and substantiated sexual misconduct remains in authority—still influencing employees, potentially serving as a government witness, and repeatedly commanding the department—the issue is no longer a Phoenix personnel dispute.
It is a national statement about the "Standards VA Police leadership" is prepared to accept.
VIII. THE DECISION NOW BELONGS TO OSP
Questions Requiring an Answer
The question is no longer whether Phoenix had a problem.
That was formally established.
The questions now are:
- Why did an official associated with a proven race-based hostile work environment and substantiated sexual misconduct remain in authority—and repeatedly serve as Acting Chief?
- Why was a Letter of Counseling considered sufficient following reported simulated masturbation behind a young female VA employee?
- Why did a Latina officer spend 300 days without her badge and arrest authority while the supervisor she reported retained rank and power?
- What meaningful corrective action followed the dispatcher’s substantiated HPP findings—and what happened to the women who reported concerns, transferred, resigned, or retired?
- Were the HPP findings, EEO records, workforce departures, Acting Chief appointments, and potential Brady/Giglio information ever reviewed together?
- What action resulted from the October 16, 2025 referral to OSP’s Investigations Division—and why has the visible outcome remained the same official’s continued authority?
Actions Within Your Authority
You have the authority to direct:
- An independent review of the official’s continued supervisory assignments and Acting Chief appointments;
- A review of whether the discipline imposed after the substantiated findings was adequate and prevented recurrence;
- A consolidated review of HPP Case Nos. 6210 and 7116, related EEO matters, female-employee departures, and available exit records;
- An assessment of whether employees experienced adverse treatment after reporting misconduct;
- A Brady, Giglio, credibility, impeachment-information, and command-suitability review;
- Preservation of relevant HPP and EEO files, Microsoft Teams recordings, investigative referrals, appointment records, and workforce data; and
- Written confirmation of what OSP has done—or why the existing command arrangement remains acceptable.
You also possess the authority to leave the structure undisturbed.
But inaction would no longer be the absence of a decision.
It would be the decision.
Either course will define the culture of the force you lead and the standard established under your tenure.
The Final Record
The Black officer proved discrimination—and became institutionally invisible when that proof demanded reform.
A young female employee became the unwitting subject of substantiated sexual misconduct by a police supervisor.
The dispatcher reported harassment, obtained findings, and left.
The Latina officer reported, lost her badge and arrest authority for 300 days, and fought her way back.
Other women transferred, resigned, retired, or remained silent.
The official remained:
- He kept his rank.
- He kept his authority.
As recently as July 13, 2026, the Agency again placed him in command as Acting Chief.
Phoenix had the warning and the opportunity to stop the pattern.
- It did not.
OSP now owns what happens next.
Respectfully,
Concerned Citizens
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerned Citizens AZ Investigative Team — Creating the Public Record So VA Leadership Can Never Claim It Did Not Know
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.