Summary: An OAWP complaint (Case No. 25-PhoenixAZ-28230) forced an investigation after overtime was approved for “investigative assistance” by someone who legally could not investigate. The facts were confirmed. The case was closed as “not sustained,” not because it didn’t happen, but because the explanation was accepted.

😬 WHEN OVERTIME LOOKS A LITTLE TOO EASY, PEOPLE START ASKING UNCOMFORTABLE QUESTIONS 😬

Every investigation starts with a question. This one started with a raised eyebrow.

Someone, somewhere, looked at a set of overtime entries and thought, “Wait… why is this being called that?” That moment is what matters.

Because this review was not launched over a typo, a paperwork glitch, or someone being bored. It was triggered by overtime records that made people stop and reread them. The kind of reread that only happens when something feels off.

In other words, this investigation didn’t exist by accident. It existed because the paperwork itself raised enough concern that the Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection (OAWP) decided it was worth digging into

🧐 WHAT PROMPTED THE INVESTIGATION 🧐

According to the memorandum, the OAWP received an anonymous complaint on May 1, 2025, assigned Case No. 25-PhoenixAZ-28230 (05/22/2025), alleging improper use of overtime. The allegation was specific, date-driven, and narrow in scope.

The complaint alleged that overtime had been approved and paid for work labeled “investigation assistance,” dating back across multiple pay periods, even though the individual receiving that overtime did not possess investigative authority under 38 U.S.C. § 902.

This was not a vague concern. The complainant identified:

• Specific overtime entries
• Specific dates
• Specific language used in official timekeeping records

That level of detail is what causes oversight offices to open cases.

✅ WHAT THE INVESTIGATION CONFIRMED✅

The investigator did not dispute the underlying facts. In fact, the memorandum explicitly states that there is no dispute on the basic facts.

The report confirms that:

• Overtime was approved
• Overtime was paid
• The overtime entries do state “investigative assistance”
• The individual did not have investigative authority under 38 U.S.C. § 902
• Those facts are acknowledged in writing.

At this point, most readers would expect the analysis to focus on why that wording was used, how approvals were granted, and whether controls failed.

🔄 HOW THE ISSUE WAS RESOLVED 🔄

Rather than finding that the overtime was improper, the conclusion rests on redefining what the phrase “investigative assistance” was intended to mean.

According to the memorandum, the wording did not imply investigative activity at all. Instead, it was used to describe overtime spent gathering documents, auditing timecards, and assisting an office with administrative tasks.

The behavior was not challenged. The approvals were not reversed. The payments were not questioned.

❓ WHY THAT EXPLANATION RAISES QUESTIONS❓

If the overtime was for clerical or administrative work, why was it labeled “investigative assistance” in the first place?

Why did supervisors approve overtime using language that overlaps with statutory investigative authority, only to later insist that the language should not be interpreted literally?

And if the wording was harmless, why did it take an OAWP investigation to explain what it really meant?

These are not hostile questions. They are reasonable ones — especially when taxpayer-funded overtime is involved.

Only the meaning of the words changed.

📌 WHAT “NOT SUSTAINED” ACTUALLY MEANS 📌

This case did not end with a finding that the allegations were false. It ended with a finding that they were not sustained.

That distinction matters.

In oversight terms, “not sustained” does not mean the conduct did not occur. It means the investigator concluded there was insufficient basis, under the applicable standard, to formally sustain a violation. The facts can be acknowledged. The events can be real. And the case can still close without accountability.

That is exactly what happened here.

⚖️ AN ETHICAL GAP, NOT A FACTUAL ONE⚖️

This is where discomfort sets in.

If overtime is approved and paid for work described as “investigative assistance,” and the individual performing that work lacks investigative authority, the ethical question is straightforward:

• "Why was that language used, approved, and left uncorrected?"

The response offered is not that the approvals were improper, but that the language should not be read the way it appears. The case closes not because the conduct is disproven, but because it is recharacterized.

Oversight that functions this way creates an ethical gap.

Employees are expected to use precise language in reports, affidavits, and timekeeping. Leadership, however, is permitted to treat language as flexible once scrutiny begins. That imbalance is difficult to reconcile.

The memorandum confirms the overtime occurred. It confirms the wording used in official records. It confirms the authority issue raised by the complainant. None of those points are refuted.

What changes is not the record of events, but the threshold for action.

🚩 WHEN THE MESSENGERS THEMSELVES ARE THE PROBLEM 🚩

Here is where public trust really starts to crack.

This investigation did not occur in a vacuum. It unfolded within a leadership environment already clouded by documented allegations and findings involving Racial Discrimination, Sexual Harassment, and Misconduct. Public records reflect substantiated discrimination findings, substantiated sexual harassment findings, documented instances of false or misleading statements, and violations of 38 C.F.R. § 735.12 involving truthfulness in official matters.

Compounding that problem, internal systems that are supposed to protect employees and ensure impartial review — including the Harassment Prevention Program (HPP) and Human Resources and Employee Labor Relations (HR/ELR) — have themselves been drawn into controversy. Rather than operating as independent safeguards, these mechanisms have been alleged to be manipulated, sidelined, or used defensively to manage exposure and shield leadership from accountability.

In some instances, members of leadership have failed to provide testimony when required, have been identified as Giglio‑impaired due to prior credibility issues, or have avoided scrutiny through procedural delay. Others have maintained close relationships with higher oversight bodies, including OS&LE, raising reasonable questions about independence, influence, and insulation from consequences.

👀 WHEN EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP KNOWS — AND LOOKS AWAY 👀

This is not a case of senior leadership being unaware.

At the Phoenix VA Healthcare System, executive leadership (often referred to as the Pentad) routinely receives notices of formal EEO and Title VII complaints through ORM notifications (including the ones received this year).

That means allegations of racial discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation, and hostile work environments are not hidden. They are delivered directly to the highest levels of facility leadership (like the ones this year).

Yet the same patterns persist. Police leadership accused of misconduct remain in place. Questionable practices continue. Oversight reviews end with explanations rather than corrections.

When leadership is aware of repeated allegations and substantiated findings but declines to act, silence becomes a decision. And when that silence coincides with close professional relationships between executive leadership and police leadership, the appearance of protectionism is hard to ignore.

That leaves a simple, uncomfortable question:

• "How is the public expected to trust an investigation’s impartiality when those responsible for oversight already know the history and still allow the same leadership structure to remain untouched?"

NOTE TO CURRENT PHOENIX VA POLICE OFFICERS READING THIS: As of now, the department and its leadership are facing four (4x) "FORMAL" EEO investigations (a fifth EEO matter will become a lawsuit next month - so keep an eye out). While leadership may project confidence, smiles, and the message that everything is fine, these matters are real and ongoing. Officers should expect outreach from ORM investigators soon, including requests for sworn statements, as those investigations move forward. Appearances and messaging change. Records and affidavits do not.

🧩 A PATTERN OVERSIGHT CANNOT IGNORE 🧩

The memorandum shows a familiar sequence:

• Work is approved. Money is paid. Concerns are raised. Language is reinterpreted. The case is closed.

Nothing in the report disproves the conduct alleged in the complaint. Instead, the outcome depends entirely on semantic clarification after the fact.

That approach may resolve cases internally. It does little to reassure employees or the public that oversight is functioning as intended.

🌐 WHY THIS MATTERS BEYOND ONE CASE 🌐

This article is not an accusation of criminal wrongdoing. It is a transparency exercise.

Oversight only works when records mean what they say at the time they are created. When official language becomes flexible after scrutiny begins, accountability becomes harder to define — and trust becomes harder to maintain.

Concerned Citizens will continue reviewing additional public records obtained through lawful disclosure processes. Clear records, clear authority, and clear oversight should never require retroactive explanations.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

📜 DISCLAIMER 📜

This content constitutes protected whistleblower‑related advocacy and petitioning activity. Retaliation against individuals for engaging in protected disclosures, cooperation with oversight bodies, or public discussion of alleged misconduct is prohibited under federal law, including 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) and (b)(9).

---------------------------------------

#PhoenixVAPolice, #PhoenixVAPD, #PhoenixVA, #PhoenixVAHealthcareSystem, #PhoenixVAMedicalCenter, #CarlTHaydenVAMC, #PhoenixVeteransAffairs, #PhoenixVeteranAffairsPolice, #VeteransAffairs, #DepartmentOfVeteransAffairs, #VAAccountability, #VAOversight, #VAReform, #FederalOversight, #GovernmentAccountability, #VAPolice, #PoliceAccountability, #PoliceOversight, #PoliceMisconduct, #AbuseOfAuthority, #EEO, #TitleVII, #WorkplaceDiscrimination, #RacialDiscrimination, #SexualHarassment, #HostileWorkEnvironment, #WorkplaceRetaliation, #Whistleblower, #WhistleblowerProtection, #WhistleblowerRetaliation, #NoFearAct, #FederalWhistleblower, #TransparencyMatters, #PublicTrust