Phoenix Veterans Affairs Police Loses Another Black Officer — Again (VA Police News)
DATELINE | ANOTHER BLACK OFFICER EXITS PHOENIX VA POLICE: Now another Black VA Police Officer is leaving after reporting that a “then” supervisor, who has been allowed to remain in a high-ranking position in the department, allegedly disclosed his medical information and made disparaging remarks. Phoenix Health Care System (PVAHCS) Medical Director Elijah Ditter and Associate Director Stacey Scherpf kept this former police supervisory official with an agency-substantiated Title VII racial discrimination finding and a Harassment Prevention Program (HPP) finding of inappropriate sexual conduct in a supervisory position of influence from 2023 to 2026 — while Black officers, Hispanic officers, and female employees exited around him — before VA Police transitioned under the Office of Operations, Security, and Preparedness.
THEY KEPT A RACIAL HARASSER IN POWER. LOTS OF BLACK OFFICERS LEFT.
A Black police officer is leaving the Phoenix VA Police Department. His last day was today. He filed an EEO complaint alleging that a "then Operational Supervisor" disclosed private medical information about him in the workplace and made disparaging remarks.
The Official Stays. The Officer Walks ("One" of Many Blacks That Have Walked)
That same “official” carries an agency-substantiated Title VII racial discrimination finding (against a former Black VA Police Officer) and a separate HPP finding of inappropriate conduct of a sexual nature. He remains a Federal Law Enforcement Officer with statutory power to arrest, detain, and use deadly force. The Black officer is walking out.
SEGREGATED OUT — THE PATTERN THE AGENCY ALREADY KNOWS
This departure is not isolated. More than five Black officers over the past four (4) years have left amid the “official’s” inappropriate behavior. Some left silently. Some left with an EEO case. One case produced a Final Agency Decision substantiating a Title VII racial discrimination violation against a Black officer (VA Case No. 200P-644-2022-147530; Bennett v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, No. 2:24-cv-00084-PHX-SPL (D. Ariz. filed Jan. 11, 2024), ECF No. 15 (Notice of Settlement, May 15, 2024)).
- Note: The case was resolved through a settlement paid with taxpayer funds. Although the court docket reflects a dismissal with prejudice — a standard administrative step that closes the lawsuit once the parties have settled — that dismissal does not erase the underlying agency finding or the fact of the settlement. Last year, Phoenix VA Police leadership told the whole department, including new officers, in a department-wide Teams meeting that the case had simply been "dismissed with prejudice." The settlement itself was not mentioned.
Hispanic Officers and Female Employees Exited Too
Hispanic officers have left. Multiple female employees have left after reporting harassment or watching the department protect the supervisor with the completed findings. Protected activity was met with detailing, isolation, and eventual exit. The “official” the agency itself found responsible stays on the force.
"The Silent Few" — The Black Officers Who Stayed Silent
Some Black officers stayed and stayed silent. Inside the department they have been referred to as "The Silent Few." They saw the discrimination. They said nothing out of fear or out of hope that silence might one day produce a promotion. It took 26 years for the Phoenix VA Police to hire its first Black supervisor in that span — and that only happened this year (there are rumors one existed around the year 2000).
THE LATINA OFFICER DETAILED FOR 300 DAYS
One Latina officer (known as the "Short 4'11 Latina Officer") reported harassment against the “official” on July 3, 2025. On July 7, 2025, the official was moved out of the office. On July 11, 2025, she was notified that her credentials were suspended and that she was being placed on a detail for unrelated accusations during which the “official” still had influence and control of the department. She was investigated by his close friend — someone he allegedly goes to the local grill with often, participated in his promotions, and who now serves as the official’s supervisor.
- She was stripped of her badge, placed under investigation, and detailed for 300 days.
Compliance Major, Then Acting Chief: Influencing the PVAHCS From the Top
Throughout that period, while the HPP investigation for harassment was still active, the “official” was moved into a “non-supervisory” position titled Compliance Major on July 7, 2025 and later appointed "Acting Chief of Police" in August 2025. He kept operational command and influence over personnel and assignments while the officer who reported him sat on a nearly year-long detail. From that seat he sat with the Directors' and Executives’ offices. The Civil Rights Act violation and the Inappropriate Sexual Conduct finding did not interrupt his command or the later Acting Chief assignment.
THE HARASSMENT PREVENTION PROGRAM FINDING AND THE MEMO
A HPP investigation (Case No. 6210) examined an allegation that the “official” simulated masturbation directed at a young female employee. On September 20, 2023, Associate Director Stacey Scherpf signed a memorandum solidifying the result. The memorandum stated that he engaged in “inappropriate conduct of a sexual nature.”
A COLLECTOR OF EEOS — AND STILL EMPLOYED
The finding stands. The “official” was later assigned Acting Chief of Police and continued to sit in executive morning meetings with the PVAHCS Executive Leadership Team. The Black officer now leaving filed his own EEO alleging that medical information was disclosed. Since 2022, the “official” has been the subject of more than ten EEO complaints. The officer is leaving instead.
THE BLACK OFFICER'S DOWNFALL: THE OAWP OVERTIME CASE THAT CLOSED ITSELF
The Black officer now leaving had his own credentials and authority suspended on May 8, 2025 shortly after he engaged in protected activity. The suspension was for a matter (believed to be pretextual) that was correctable on the spot — verbiage on a citation.
An anonymous whistleblower complaint to the Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection (OAWP) was received on May 1, 2025 and triggered Case No. 25-PhoenixAZ-28230. The allegation was that overtime had been approved and paid for work labeled “investigative assistance” by an individual who did not possess investigative authority under 38 U.S.C. § 902. In a May 12, 2025 email with the AFGE Union, the “official” stated:
- “We did place the employee on a detail. Thursday, May 8th. At about 2000 hours.”
The investigation memorandum confirmed the overtime was approved, paid, and labeled “investigative assistance.”
The Self-Investigation and the Result
The result was textbook: “We investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing.” The case was closed “Not Sustained.” The conclusion rested on reinterpreting the phrase so that “investigative assistance” did not mean investigative activity. The facts remained. The finding did not.
- Note: “Not Sustained” does not mean the conduct did not happen or that there was no wrongdoing. It means the investigation did not produce enough evidence to reach a sustained conclusion. It is not an exoneration, and it is not an unfounded finding.
THE RECORD THAT DID NOT CHANGE
Associate Director Stacey Scherpf signed the HPP memorandum documenting inappropriate conduct of a sexual nature. Medical Director Elijah Ditter and the facility’s executive leadership retained the “official” in supervisory and Acting Chief of Police roles.
Davis Vanguard: Report on "Dirty Badges"
August 2025 emails show both Ditter and Scherpf were aware of the Davis Vanguard news article titled “Allegations of Racism and Abuse of Power Plague Phoenix VA Police Department.” The piece broke the pattern nationally. It reported on the same issues first detailed in the “Dirty Badges (VA Police): Inside the Corruption, Retaliation, & Selective Justice at the Phoenix VA” reporting.
“Big VA” Wanted a Retraction
In an August 22, 2025 Teams meeting, Phoenix VA Police Leadership stated that “Big VA” was going to request a retraction and described the Change.org petition page as just some "anonymous blog." Thankfully, Davis Vanguard stood strong against the multi-billion taxpayer-funded agency and brought national attention to issues that had stayed buried behind Privacy Act restrictions, administrative investigations, and pages of redactions — the kind of secrecy that lets a department operate like a small town in the middle of nowhere where nobody outside ever sees what’s happening.
ONE YEAR LATER — ANOTHER BLACK OFFICER WALKED OUT. THE BADGE STAYED.
One year after the reporting first documented in “One Year After ‘Dirty Badges’: Phoenix VA Executives Know — And the Same Problems Remain,” and after Davis Vanguard carried the same pattern to a national audience, the result is the same. Black officers continue to leave.
The "official" with the substantiated Title VII racial discrimination finding and the HPP finding of inappropriate sexual conduct remains on the force. Executive leadership has the paper. It has not changed the outcome — and now:
- Another Black officer walked out. But a Racial Discriminator Kept the Badge.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerned Citizens AZ Investigative Team — Another Black officer is gone. The official with the Title VII racial discrimination finding and the sexual harassment finding is still on the force. The agency has the paper. It has not changed the outcome.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.