GovernmentExecutive.com

By allowing a woman suspected of possessing cocaine to stay at his house, a border patrol agent violated agency policy, a federal appeals court ruled last week.

Tim Dale, a border patrol agent in Del Rio, Texas, lost his job in 2001 after his supervisors discovered that he had welcomed Natalie Rohr, a young woman arrested twice on charges of cocaine possession, into his home. Dale also posted bond for Rohr, who eventually got off without any convictions though a grand jury indicted her following one of her arrests.

The Border Patrol Handbook prohibits agents from fraternizing with "known or suspected" criminals.

"While law violators and other disreputable persons are sometimes ingratiating and have engaging personalities, these qualities do not justify associating with them," the handbook states. "Even the appearance of being social with such persons must be avoided."

Border Patrol officials fired Dale for breaking these rules. He protested this decision, claiming that he had believed in Rohr's innocence and had never viewed his guest as a "suspected" criminal. Rohr's estranged mother may have framed her, he argued.

An arbitrator at the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, an independent agency dedicated to resolving labor disputes, sided with Dale. He "reasonably believed that the woman was not guilty of cocaine use," the arbitrator found. The courts never convicted Rohr, and Dale could well have thought that his guest's vindictive mother simply wanted to get her in trouble, the arbitrator noted.

But the Office of Personnel Management stepped in and disputed the arbitrator's decision, claiming that Dale must have known that the woman was, at the very least, a suspected criminal. A federal appeals court agreed with OPM.

"Rohr's grand jury indictment, not to mention her arrests for felony cocaine possession and the physical evidence, would lead a disinterested observer to but one conclusion - that Rohr was a suspected narcotics law violator," U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit judges said in a Jan. 26 decision.

The appeals judges added that Dale deserved to lose his job for breaching agency policy. Though the government should respect employees' privacy, "the Border Patrol is trusted to protect our nation's borders from, among other things, the influx of illegal drugs," the ruling stated. "Associations between border patrol agents and suspected criminals, especially those suspected of felony drug offenses, undermine the public's confidence in the agency's ability to fulfill its mission."

One federal appeals judge dissented, arguing that "it is not for this court to reweigh the evidence or to reject an arbitrator's findings for which there was evidentiary support." The arbitrator based his ruling on "undisputed testimony - including that of the girl's divorced father - that the mother was quite capable of framing her daughter," the dissenting judge said.

Office of Personnel Management v. Tim Dale, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (03-3030), Jan. 26, 2004

Vets Vent

Rep. Ted Strickland, D-Ohio, and the Vietnam Veterans of America filed a lawsuit Jan. 22 against the Veterans Affairs Department, has accusing it of failing to meet its congressionally mandated outreach efforts for veterans.

"By refusing to reach out to veterans and inform them of the services for which they qualify, the VA is effectively limiting access to benefits that veterans deserve and were promised," said Strickland, a member of the House Veterans Affairs Committee.

Strickland said the lawsuit was in response to a memorandum that Laura Miller, VA deputy secretary for operations and management, issued last July instructing all VA directors to "ensure that no marketing activities to enroll new veterans occur within your networks." The memo added that even though "some sites might have local capacity...all facilities are expected to abide by this policy."

At the time, the department said it had to halt efforts aimed at enrolling new veterans into its health care system because of a budget crunch.

Strickland said he received a letter from VA Secretary Anthony Principi last month defending the policy that prompted the lawsuit.

"If the VA lacks sufficient money, the secretary should come to Congress and ask for more resources rather than ration care," Strickland said. "This lawsuit is a last resort. I wish there had been some other way to deal with this situation, but the administration has been unwilling to lift this shameful policy."

Post a Comment

To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.