U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Discipline Analysis Report
Fiscal Year 2018

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
2

Executive Summary
The release of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Discipline Analysis Report for Fiscal
Year (FY) 2018 supports CBP’s goal to promote greater efficiency, transparency, and consistency
in its discipline program. CBP is one of the world’s largest law enforcement organizations with
more than 60,000 employees. Each employee has a responsibility to the United States Government
and its citizens to place loyalty to the Constitution, laws and ethical principles above private gain.
To maintain the public’s trust and confidence in the integrity of CBP, each employee must respect
and adhere to the principles of ethical conduct as well as CBP’s Standards of Conduct.
The FY 2018 Discipline Analysis Report is designed to apprise CBP leadership about the latest
trends in discipline and employee misconduct CBP-wide. The report contains statistical data and
analysis of CBP’s discipline program to include a comparison of employee discipline across all
program offices. It also includes an overview of disciplinary actions taken by CBP deciding
officials and identifies trends in employee misconduct by individual program office.
During FY 2018 approximately nine percent of the total CBP workforce engaged in some degree of
misconduct resulting in formal disciplinary action. Written reprimands, the least severe type of
formal disciplinary action, remain the most common type of corrective action. A smaller
percentage of the workforce engaged in misconduct for which more severe discipline was
necessary. In keeping with the Agency’s Table of Penalties and Offenses which provides guidance
on appropriate penalties for misconduct offense categories, actions beyond written reprimands
include short suspensions without pay up to and including removal from Federal service.
Discipline in CBP is handled either by a central proposing body, the Discipline Review Board
(DRB), or by a local management official. When a proposal is made by local management, we will
refer to this as a management determination. When the proposal is made by the DRB, it will be
referred to as a DRB issued proposal. Overall, 46 % of proposal letters were sustained in FY18,
47% were mitigated, and 7% did not result in discipline.
The three most common types of misconduct resulting in a management determination in FY 2018
were the same as FY 2017; Failure to Follow Policy/Procedures, Failure to Safeguard Property, and
Unprofessional Conduct. These three types of misconduct accounted for 38 percent of all the
determinations.
The most common types of misconduct the DRB issued proposals for in FY 2018, were
Dishonesty, Driving Under the Influence, and Misuse of Position. A total of 271 allegations of
misconduct involving 248 employees were presented to DRB panels which means that less than
one-half of one percent of CBP’s employees were the subject of cases presented to the DRB.
The United States Border Patrol and Office of Field Operations comprise the majority of CBP
employees and 92 percent of all actions processed in FY 2018 involve employees from these two
organizations. Laredo and San Diego Field Offices as well as Tucson and El Paso (Rio Grande)
Sectors are the largest offices in the country and effected the most disciplinary actions.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
3
The FY 2018 CBP Discipline Analysis Report includes a comprehensive statistical analysis of all
disciplinary actions taken against CBP employees in FY 2018, including comparisons to prior FY
data, with specific sections addressing:
Agency-wide Actions;
DRB Cases;
Employee Arrests;
Alcohol Related Driving Offenses;
Domestic Violence;
Mandatory Removals of Law Enforcement Officers (LEO);
Indefinite Suspensions;
Supervisory Discipline;
Use of Force Allegations;
Probationary Period Terminations; and
Drug-Free Workplace.
In addition to these sections, each component has its own appendix which provides a deeper
analysis into component-specific disciplinary actions.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
4

Table of Contents
Introduction

Page 5

Overview of CBP’s Discipline Process

Page 6

Agency-Wide Actions

Page 7

Discipline Review Board Actions

Page 14

Employee Arrests

Page 24

Alcohol-Related Driving Offenses

Page 27

Domestic Violence-Related Offenses

Page 29

Mandatory Removal – Felony Convictions

Page 31

Indefinite Suspensions

Page 32

Supervisory Discipline

Page 35

Use of Force Allegations

Page 36

Probationary Period Terminations

Page 38

Drug Free Workplace

Page 39

Conclusion

Page 40

Appendix 1, CBP Employees by Office

Page 41

Appendix 2, U.S. Border Patrol

Page 42

Appendix 3, Office of Field Operations

Page 50

Appendix 4, Air and Marine Operations

Page 57

Appendix 5, Enterprise Services

Page 60

Appendix 6, Office of Commissioner

Page 64

Appendix 7, Operations Support

Page 66

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
5

Introduction
In fulfilling CBP’s mission and to maintain public trust, its employees must uphold the highest
standards of integrity, professionalism, and loyalty to the United States. Employees who violate
CBP’s Standards of Conduct must be held accountable for their actions. To maintain our
workforce’s trust, CBP’s discipline program must efficiently evaluate employee misconduct and
impose consistently fair and timely corrective action. These standards are essential to the Agency’s
success and the public’s trust in CBP.
CBP employees are bound by the Merit System Principles which serve as a foundation for the
standards of ethical conduct for all federal employees. The public has a right to an efficient and
effective workforce which is responsive to their needs. CBP recognizes that public service is a
public trust and employees are obligated to honor that trust by respect for and adherence to the
Constitution, laws, and ethical principles of Government service.
The CBP Unified Integrity and Personal Accountability Strategy emphasizes that employee
misconduct destroys public trust and underscores the need for personal responsibility by every
employee. The strategy outlines several goals and objectives for CBP which are designed to
strengthen its culture of integrity. For the Office of Human Resources Management (HRM), these
goals and objectives include efforts to improve transparency and increase efficiency and
consistency throughout the discipline process. To meet these objectives, the FY 2018 CBP
Discipline Analysis Report includes statistical analyses and sections highlighting employee arrests
and disciplinary action in response to those arrests, indefinite suspensions, supervisory discipline,
probationary terminations, and actions initiated in accordance with CBP’s Drug Free Workplace
Program. Other highlights include an analysis of the number and types of cases presented to the
DRB, with a targeted breakdown by program office, length of service, and supervisory status.
Once again, this year’s report contains data analysis for disciplinary actions CBP-wide. Each
component has its own appendix, which provides a deeper analysis into component-specific serious
disciplinary actions.
Information from the Human Resources Business Engine, Joint Integrity Case Management
System, Firearms and Credentials Tracking System, in addition to data obtained from the records
maintained by the National Finance Center served as source data in conducting the analysis for this
report.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
6

Overview of CBP’s Discipline Process
CBP’s ability to achieve its mission directly depends upon its workforce. Discipline, whether an
informal or formal action, is imposed by CBP to correct employee misconduct that affects the
efficiency of the service, and encourage employee conduct that is in compliance with the Agency’s
standards of conduct, standard operating procedures, policies, and office practices.
Human Resources Policy and Programs Directorate (HRPPD) is the sole authority within CBP for
the management of labor and employee relations matters. HRPPD develops, establishes, and
implements CBP-wide Labor and Employee Relations (LER) policies, programs, and procedures to
facilitate effectiveness and operational consistency. HRPPD provides expert advice and training,
and processes matters related to disciplinary and adverse actions, medical issues, leave
administration, performance-based actions, grievances, unfair labor practices (ULP), and more.
HRPPD has 94 employees who provide LER support to CBP’s components, ranging from the
Headquarters level to the field level, and CBP locations abroad. There are approximately 60,000
CBP employees Agency-wide. In FY 2018, LER closed 7,739 allegation of misconduct cases; the
average case load of the LER staff is approximately 103 1 cases each. The dedicated and highly
qualified LER staff continues to be extremely successful in supporting the Agency in
accomplishing its mission.
In accordance with procedures set forth in 5 C.F.R. Part 752 and 5 U.S.C. Chapter 75, collective
bargaining agreements (CBAs) and Agency policies, CBP addresses misconduct through informal
discipline, as well as formal discipline, which includes written reprimands, disciplinary suspensions
between 1 and 14 calendar days, and adverse actions including suspensions of 15 calendar days or
more, demotions, and removals. Informal discipline customarily refers to a written or verbal
counseling or memorandum of instruction.
In accordance with CBP’s Delegation of Authority, the authority to propose or decide specified
actions is generally delegated to supervisory and managerial positions at the lowest organizational
level, appropriate to the severity of the misconduct, subject to certain exceptions such as DRB and
Domestic Violence Cases. The final disposition of proposed discipline is determined by a deciding
official in the employee’s chain of command, unless there is a conflict of interest. In accordance
with 5 U.S.C. § 7513(a), HRM and management ensure that the employee’s rights are preserved
throughout the discipline process and all decisions rendered are fair, consistent, and for “such cause
as will promote the efficiency of the service.”

These numbers do not include the performance based actions, medical issues, grievances, ULPs,
training provided to the stakeholders, etc.
1

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
7

Agency-Wide Actions
In FY 2018, HRM closed
7,739 allegations of
Chart 1: Cases Closed
misconduct (cases) CBP8,253
wide. Discipline cases that
were received in a previous
7,740
7,739
fiscal year may have been
7,238
closed in the current fiscal
year. The traversing of fiscal
6,887
years is attributable to
several factors, which
include due process
requirements, requests for
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
FY 2018
extensions, and other case
related issues. Chart 1
shows that the number of cases HRM closed has fluctuated over the past five years. HRM closed
on average 7,571 cases per year in the last five fiscal years.
The 7,739 cases that HRM closed involved 5,447 identified employees, 1,115 unknown employees
(unknown employees were not identified when the allegation was made and were unable to be
identified by CBP), and 32 contractors. This means that nine percent of CBP employees were the
subject of an allegation of misconduct that closed in FY 2018.

Chart 2: Cases by Component
Chart 2: Cases by Component
OFO
OFO
USBP
USBP
ES
ES
AMO
AMO
OS
OS
OPR
OPR
OC
OC
OT
OT
OPA
OPA
OCA
OCA
OCC

Allegations of misconduct
involving employees within
U.S. Border Patrol (USBP)
and the Office of Field
Operations (OFO) made up
the vast majority, or 92
percent, of FY 2018 cases.
This is not a surprising
statistic, as employees within
USBP and OFO make up 84
percent of the CBP
workforce as a whole. Chart
2 shows the total number of
cases by component.

Allegations against
supervisors represented 20 percent of cases closed by LER. Allegations against LEOs represented
73 percent of cases closed by LER.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
8
Management closed the majority of the 7,739 cases, or 54 percent, with a determination that either
action was unwarranted or the allegation unsubstantiated (hereinafter referred to as unsubstantiated)
this includes cases with outcomes reported as discipline not warranted or unfounded. Current CBP
reporting requirements mandate employees report a variety of issues to the Joint Intake Center,
regardless of whether the issue involves actionable misconduct. Another 172 cases closed without
action, because the employee resigned or retired prior to issuance of a disciplinary action; 162 cases
closed because the employee had multiple open cases and LER administratively closed one of the
open cases to compile the allegations into a single case. In the remaining 3,222 cases, management
made a disciplinary determination or issued a proposed disciplinary action.
Determinations
Management is authorized to make a disciplinary determination on certain matters without issuing a
proposal. Examples of such actions are: reprimanding an employee 2, terminating a probationary
employee, demoting a probationary supervisor, instructing an employee that they must cease and
desist from certain actions by issuing a memorandum of instruction (MOI), and removing an
employee who has violated a Last Chance Agreement (LCA).
Management made these types of determinations in 2,049 cases in FY 2018. Charts 3A and 3B
show the breakdown of disciplinary determinations by component. Counseling, which is informal
discipline, accounted for 890 of the management determinations. Formal discipline accounted for
1,029. Collectively they represented 93 percent of management determinations.

Chart 3A: Management Determinations
LCA Violation

4

3

Reassignment

2

Demotion

2

1

Leave Restriction

8

17

Termination

18

11

MOI

51

49

Reprimand

532

404

Counseling

362

469
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

The National Border Patrol Council CBA requires a proposal before an employee is reprimanded
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
9

Chart 3B: Management Determinations
Demotion
Termination
MOI
Reprimand
Counseling

ES

AMO

OPR

OPA

OC

OT

OS

The three most common types of misconduct resulting in a management determination in FY 2018
were the same as FY 2017; Failure to Follow Policy/Procedures, Failure to Safeguard Property, and
Unprofessional Conduct. These three types of misconduct accounted for 38 percent of all
determinations.
1. Failure to Follow Policy
a. Thirty-two percent of Failure to Follow
Policy cases CBP-wide resulted in a
counseling and 37 percent resulted in a
reprimand.
b. Chart 4 shows the breakdown of failure
to follow policy cases that resulted in a
counseling or reprimand by component.
c. OFO issued a counseling in roughly 34
percent of its failure to follow policy
cases and a reprimand in 34 percent of
failure to follow cases. The USBP
issued a reprimand in 41 percent of its
failure to follow policy cases.
2.

Chart 4: Failure to Follow
Policy
OS
Less
Than
1%

6%
2%

37%
1%
ES

Failure to Safeguard Property
a. Thirty-two percent resulted in
counseling and 34 percent resulted in a
reprimand.
b. Chart 5 shows the breakdown of failure
to safeguard property cases that resulted
in a counseling or reprimand by
component.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

AMO

54%
OFO

OPR

USBP

Chart 5: Safeguarding
Property
1%

2%
36%

58%
1%
1%
ES

AMO

0%
OFO

OC

OT

OS

1%
OPR
USBP

OS

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
10
c. Thirty eight percent of USBP and 43 percent of OFO Safeguarding Property cases
resulted in a counseling.
3. Unprofessional Conduct
a. Fifty-two percent resulted in a counseling
and 24 percent resulted in a reprimand.
b. Chart 6 shows the breakdown of
unprofessional conduct cases that
resulted in a counseling or reprimand by
component.
c. USBP issued a counseling in 54 percent
of its unprofessional conduct cases,
whereas OFO issued a counseling in 50
percent of its unprofessional conduct
cases.

Chart 6: Unprofessional
Conduct
7%
1%

28%
0%
0%

63%

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

1%

0%

USBP

OS

OT

OPA

OPR

OFO

AMO

ES

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
11
Proposed and Decided Discipline
Management issued proposals in 1,479 disciplinary cases in FY 2018. Disciplinary suspensions
accounted for 847 of the proposals and reprimands accounted for 455. All together, they represented
89 percent of disciplinary proposals. It is important to note that employees who are members of the
National Border Patrol Council bargaining unit must be issued a proposal to reprimand before a final
reprimand can be issued to them. Therefore, USBP employees make up 69 percent of the cases with
a proposed action. However, the number of
proposed reprimands issued by USBP (455)
Chart 7: Types of Decisions
is comparable to the number of reprimands
3%
issued by OFO (493).
Deciding officials made decisions on 1,435
of the 1,479 proposals issued. This number
excludes 44 cases where the employee
retired or resigned before a decision was
issued. Overall, deciding officials sustained
a non-adverse action in 40 percent of
decisions. Proposing officials proposed a
non-adverse action in 80 percent of
proposals. Chart 7 shows the breakdown of
types of disciplinary actions decided across
all components.

57%
40%

Adverse
Non-Adverse
Unsubstantiated/Unwarranted

Charts 8A and 8B on the following page show the breakdown of disciplinary proposals by
component.

Chart 8A: Proposals
Indefinite Suspension

23

16

Adverse Suspension

39

34

Removal

72

70

Reprimand

455

Disciplinary Suspension

257
0%

10%

20%

427
30%
OFO

40%

50%

60%

USBP

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

70%

80%

90%

100%

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
12

Chart 8B: Proposals
Indefinite Suspension

1

Adverse Suspension

3

4

Removal

9

Disciplinary Suspension

1
3

1

25
0%

10%

20%
ES

30%
AMO

1

1

12
40%
OCA

50%
OPR

OC

60%

70%

1
3
11 2

80%

90%

100%

OS

The most common types of misconduct that management issued proposals for in FY 2018 were
similar to FY 2017, Careless Operation of a Government Owned Vehicle (GOV) (such as accidents)
and Failure to Safeguard Property (including lost or stolen property). Together, these two types of
misconduct accounted for 70 percent of the proposals issued.
1. Careless Operation of a GOV
Chart 9: Careless GOV
a. Fifty-one percent resulted in a
proposed reprimand and 26 percent
ES
2%
Less
resulted in a proposed disciplinary
Than 1%
suspension.
b. Chart 9 shows the breakdown of
Careless GOV Operation cases that
resulted in a proposal by
component.
c. USBP issued a proposed
98%
reprimand in 51 percent of GOV
accident cases.
USBP ES OFO
d. Eighty-four percent of cases resulted in a
decision to implement non-adverse action
e. Deciding officials determined the misconduct was unsubstantiated in three percent of
Careless Operation of GOV cases.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
13
2. Failure to Safeguard Property
Chart 10: Safeguarding
a. Forty percent of cases resulted in a
Property
reprimand, 20 percent resulted in a
OC
proposed non adverse suspension, and
3%
2%
Less
approximately 38 percent of cases received
than
1%
a counseling.
38%
b. Chart 10 shows the breakdown of lost or
57%
stolen property cases that resulted in a
proposal by component.
c. OFO issued a counseling in roughly half of
OT
OPR
the cases, whereas USBP issued a
Less
Less
than
than
reprimand in roughly half of their cases.
1%
1%
d. Forty-seven percent of decisions on these
cases resulted in a decision to implement a
ES
AMO OFO
OPR
non-adverse action.
OT
USBP OC
e. Deciding officials determined the
misconduct was unsubstantiated or
unwarranted in three percent of Safeguarding Property cases.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
14

Discipline Review Board (DRB) Actions
The DRB was established in 1999, under the former U.S. Customs Service, to promote fairness and
consistency in the process for addressing serious cases of employee misconduct. In FY 2018, the
primary function of the DRB was to review investigative reports of misconduct and propose adverse
actions (a suspension of 15 days or more, demotion, or removal), when appropriate. In general, an
adverse action was proposed when either the employee engaged in egregious misconduct or a higher
penalty is justified under the principles of progressive discipline. The oversight, administration, and
management of DRB process rests with HRM under HRPPD, LER Division. It should be noted
that in October 2018 Commissioner McAleenan elected to update the Delegation. Part of that
update changed the scope of the DRB. Today, the DRB primarily addresses cases of misconduct
that fall under a specific type of misconduct, such as, but not limited to, domestic violence, false
statements, founded civil liberties violations, aggravated driving under the influence cases and
serious criminal activity both on- and off-duty. The Board is also utilized to process high profile
cases at the election of senior leadership.
The DRB plays a crucial role in ensuring that the most serious misconduct is processed fairly and
consistently. Proposals issued by the board are consistent with case law and Agency
guidelines. Additionally, because DRB members hear CBP-wide cases, they seek to ensure
Agency-wide consistency in their proposals. Finally, DRB panels are comprised of members from
multiple offices, the members are able to gain insight into other offices and provide their
perspective to one another when determining misconduct and the proposed penalty.
Membership
During the first part of FY 2018, DRB members were GS-14, GS-15, and Senior Executive Service
(SES) managers and supervisors nominated by their respective Executive Assistant Commissioners
and Chief. At that time, there were 111 Members. Beginning July 11, 2018, membership was
restricted to only GS-15 and SES. There were 84 members in 2018. Chart 11 shows the breakdown
of membership by component.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
15
Individual DRB panels are comprised
of three DRB members who are
selected from the pool of candidates.
LER strategically selects the members
to ensure that each panel contains at
least one member from OFO and one
from USBP, as those components
make up the majority of DRB cases.
To participate on panels, DRB
members undergo thorough two-day
training every other year. The training
covers discipline theory, evidence,
common misconduct, and case law.
During the training the members
participate on a mock DRB and
observe real DRB panels.

Chart 11: DRB Members
USBP
OFO
AMO
OS
ES
OT

Case Intake
In FY 2018, LER Intake reviewed 1,649 allegations of misconduct from a variety of sources. Every
case investigated by CBP’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General, or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is
referred to Intake for review. CBP OPR investigated 68 percent of the cases referred to LER
Intake.
A large portion of cases, or 81 percent,
Chart 12: Cases Reviewed by Intake
was remanded to local management for
review and possible initiation of
disciplinary action in consultation with
their servicing LER Specialist. Chart
12 shows that the number of cases
referred to Intake has slowly decreased
over the past five years until returning
FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018
to the FY 2014 level in FY 2018.
Chart 13 on the next page shows the
overall number of cases presented to DRB over the five-year timeframe.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
16
A total of 271 allegations of misconduct involving 248 employees were presented to 42 separate
DRB panels in FY 2018. 3 This means that less than one half of one percent of employees were the
subject of cases presented to a DRB. The type of employee most likely to have a case presented to
a DRB is a non-supervisory GS-12 law enforcement officer with 15 years of federal service.
Supervisory misconduct presented to a DRB stayed the same this year with 15 percent of DRB
cases involving supervisors. The rate of supervisory misconduct presented to a DRB was
increasing since FY 2013, with a high of 39 percent in FY 2015. Supervisors within USBP made
up 55 percent of the supervisory cases presented to DRB this fiscal year.
While the case Intake process will remain the same in the coming fiscal years, CBP anticipates the
number of cases remanded to local management for action to increase and the number of cases
presented to the DRB to decrease. This prediction is predicated on CBP implementing changes to
the scope of the cases presented to the DRB in FY 2019 to ensure that discipline corresponds
consistently with the severity of the offense. Specifically, the DRB will no longer be penalty
based; instead, the DRB will review cases involving serious misconduct that harms the agency’s
mission in broad ways and cuts across all geographic and component lines. All other cases will be
remanded to local management for review and action as warranted.

Chart 13: DRB Panel Statistics
285

268

255

242

212

23

FY 2014

253

233

271

248
219

39

48

42

42

FY 2015

FY 2016

FY 2017

FY 2018

Panels

Cases

Individuals

When an employee is the subject of more than one investigative report, the case materials are
combined and a single proposal notice is issued.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
17
Allegations of misconduct involving employees within USBP and OFO made up the majority, or 90
percent of FY 2018 DRB cases. Chart 14 shows the number of DRB cases by component for the
last three fiscal years.

FY 2016

FY 2017

OT

OC

OS

ES

AMO

OFO

USBP

OT

OC

OS

ES

AMO

OFO

USBP

OT

OC

OS

ES

AMO

OFO

USBP

Chart 14: DRB Cases by Component

FY 2018

DRB Proposals/Determinations
Most cases, or 76 percent, received a proposed adverse action from the DRB. That is down from 87
percent in FY 2017. Chart 15 shows the breakdown by component for each type of DRB
proposal/determination. It also shows the total number of each type of DRB proposal/determination
on the right.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
18

Chart 15: DRB Proposals Determinations
Removals
Adverse Suspension
Disciplinary Suspension
Unsubstantiated
Reprimand
Demotion and Suspension
Counseling

USBP

OFO

ES

The most common types of misconduct the DRB
issued proposals for in FY 2018 were the same as FY
2017:
1. Dishonesty
a. Ninety-eight percent of cases where
DRB found that an employee
engaged in dishonesty resulted in a
proposed adverse action.
b. Chart 16 shows the breakdown of
dishonesty cases by component.
c. Real Case – DRB proposed the
removal of SBPA who colluded to
have false firearms scores entered
into FACTS.

AMO

OC

OS

Chart 16: Dishonesty
4%

8%

50 cases

34%

2. Driving Under the Influence
a. Eighty-nine percent of cases where
DRB found that an employee engaged
in Driving Under the Influence (DUI)
resulted in a proposed adverse action.
b. Chart 17 shows the breakdown of
DUI cases by component.
c. Real Case – DRB proposed the
removal of a CBPO charged with
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

54%

USBP

OFO

ES

Chart 17: DUI

OC

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
19
Felony DUI after crashing into another vehicle while driving the wrong way on the
interstate.
3. Misuse of Position
a. One hundred percent of cases where
DRB found misuse of position
resulted in a proposed adverse action.
b. Chart 18 shows the breakdown of
Misuse of Position cases by
component.
c. Real Case – DRB proposed the
removal of an IT Specialist who
received gratuities from IT vendors
and manipulated contract
specifications to benefit the vendor
who was providing him with gifts.
4. Failure to Follow Policy
a. Eighty-two percent of cases where
DRB found failure to follow policy
resulted in a proposed adverse action.
b. Chart 19 shows the breakdown of
Failure to Follow Policy cases by
component.
c. Real Case – DRB proposed the
removal of a BPA who took
government-owned exercise
equipment from a Station Crossfit
tent, and used his GOV to transport
the equipment.

Chart 18: Misuse of Position
8%
8%
42%
12 Cases

42%
OFO

USBP

ES

OS

Chart 19: Failure to Follow
Policy
4% 3%

28 Cases

50%

40%

3%

ES

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

AMO

OFO

OS

USBP

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
20
5. Misuse of a Government Computer
a. One hundred percent of cases where
DRB found that an employee misused
a government computer to search for
pornography resulted in a proposed
adverse action.
b. Chart 20 shows the breakdown of
Misuse of a Government Computer
cases by component.
c. Real Case DRB proposed a 30 day
suspension to a CBPO who accessed
sexually explicit material on his
government computer.

Chart 20: Misuse of
Computer
11%

44%

10 Cases
45%

Due to the DRB re-scope many of these categories
ES OFO USBP
of misconduct are unlikely to remain top categories
of misconduct addressed by DRB in FY 2019. Of those listed above, only Dishonesty, and some
DUI cases remain categories of misconduct to be addressed by DRB.
Decisions on DRB Proposals
In FY 2018, LER closed a total of 209 DRB cases, regardless of when the DRB panel convened or
in what fiscal year the proposal was served. For example, a case presented in FY 2017 could
potentially have a decision issued in FY 2018. The traversing of fiscal years is attributable to
several factors, which include due process requirements, requests for extensions, and other caserelated issues.
Excluding the 36 cases that were combined, the 14 cases where the misconduct was unsubstantiated
by the DRB, and the 17 cases where the employee retired or resigned prior to a decision being
issued, deciding officials issued decisions on 142 DRB proposals. Chart 21 shows the number of
decisions issued by component.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
21

Chart 21: Decisions

OS
OC

2
3

ES
AMO

7
3

OFO

49

USBP

78

Overall, deciding officials sustained an adverse action in 58 percent4 of cases in which the DRB
proposed adverse actions. This was 66 percent the previous year. Due to the consideration of
mitigating Douglas factors, along with additional information provided during the reply period, it is
not surprising that such a large number of proposed adverse actions are mitigated. Chart 22 shows
the breakdown of types of disciplinary actions
decided across all components.

Chart 22: Types of Decisions

Deciding officials determined that 14 DRB
proposals did not warrant disciplinary action. USBP
represented 64 percent of the cases that were closed
as not warranting disciplinary action.
Deciding officials entered into settlement
agreements at the decision stage in 49 percent of
DRB cases in which a proposal was issued. One
benefit of settlement agreements is that the employee
waives their right to appeal the matter as part of the
agreement. Thirty-five percent of settled cases
resulted in the deciding official determining that an
adverse action was warranted but allowing the
employee to serve a non-adverse suspension due to
entering into a settlement agreement.
Rates of mitigation on common misconduct DRB issued proposals for:

This number includes 16 cases where the deciding official sustained an adverse action, but
implemented a non-adverse action due to the employee entering into a settlement agreement.

4

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
22
1. Dishonesty
a. Seventy percent of cases where DRB found dishonesty resulted in a decision to
implement adverse action.
b. Deciding officials determined the misconduct was unsubstantiated in three
dishonesty cases.
c. The employee resigned prior to a decision in six cases.
2. DUI
a. Eighty percent of cases where DRB found that an employee engaged in DUI and
proposed adverse action resulted in a decision to implement adverse action.
i. USBP sustained adverse actions for proposals involving DUI in 50 percent of
cases, as did AMO, whereas OFO sustained adverse action in 75 percent of
cases.
b. No DUI cases were closed as unsubstantiated.
3. Misuse of Position
a. Fifty percent of cases where DRB found misuse of position and proposed adverse
action resulted in a decision to implement adverse action.
b. USBP deciding officials determined the misconduct was unsubstantiated in one
misuse of position case.
4. Failure to Follow Policy
a. Seventy-seven percent of cases where DRB found failure to follow policy and
proposed adverse action resulted in a decision to implement adverse action.
i. USBP sustained adverse actions for proposals involving failure to follow
policy in 90 percent of cases, whereas OFO sustained adverse action in 60
percent of cases.
b. No deciding official determined the misconduct was unsubstantiated for a failure to
follow policy case.
5. Misuse of a Government Owned Vehicle
a. Eighty-three percent of cases where DRB found misuse of a GOV and proposed
adverse action resulted in a decision to implement adverse action.
i. USBP sustained adverse actions for proposals involving misuse of a GOV in
62 percent of cases.
b. No misuse of a GOV cases were closed as unsubstantiated.
Timeliness

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
23

Chart 23: DRB Case Processing
Times

In FY 2015, HRM implemented
several process improvements and
worked collaboratively with
stakeholders to refine the discipline
281
process in an effort to improve
201
timeliness of actions. HRM developed
a case processing goal of 180 days for
150
150
134
DRB cases. After meeting that goal in
2016 and 2017 the timeline was
reduced to 155 days in FY 2018. As
of September 30, 2018, the average
case processing time for FY 2018
FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018
DRB cases was 134 days. However,
as more FY 2018 cases continue to close, this number will likely change. HRM expects it will
remain below the established 155-day case processing goal. Chart 23 shows the dramatic decrease
in DRB case processing times since FY 2014.
Appeals
LER closed a total of 449 DRB cases during FY 2015 and FY 2016. Both fiscal years had roughly
the same rate of cases appealed, with an average of 23 percent of DRB cases being appealed each
fiscal year. Of the cases that are appealed, 57 percent were appealed to arbitration by the union.
The next most frequent venue for appeal is the Merit Systems Protection Board, with 38 percent of
cases appealed there.
Ninety-one percent of appealed DRB cases from FY 2015 and FY 2016 resulted in a positive
outcome for CBP. Either the Agency’s action was fully sustained on appeal, the employee retired or
resigned, or the employee agreed to a LCA. CBP’s disciplinary action was fully upheld in only 32
percent of appealed cases. This rate is not surprising, as many cases appealed to arbitration result in
arbitrators splitting decisions to appease the parties. Only 8 percent of cases were fully reversed on
appeal.
It is of particular interest to note that approximately 6 percent of appealed DRB cases from FY 2015
and FY 2016 were still pending resolution at the third party stage at the close of FY 2017.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
24

Employee Arrests
As an Agency charged with law enforcement activities, CBP regards any violation of law by its
employees as being inconsistent with and contrary to its law enforcement mission. The CBP
Standards of Conduct provide notice that all CBP employees, whether they are on or off-duty, must
cease from engaging in any activities which violate law.
Contrary to these Standards, an unacceptable
number of CBP employees are arrested each year for
violating federal, state, or local law. Each arrest has
the potential to compromise CBP’s mission and
public image, albeit only a very small percentage of
the overall CBP workforce was arrested in FY 2018.
There were 268 CBP employees arrested in FY
2018. There were 11 employees arrested twice; one
employee arrested four times; and one employee
arrested five times, resulting in 286 total arrests.
Chart 24 shows the breakdown of arrests by
component. The Other category on Chart 24
includes employees from Air and Marine Operations
(AMO), Enterprise Services (ES), Office of
Professional Responsibility (OPR), and Operations
Support (OS).

Chart 24: FY 2018 Arrests

8%
41%
51%

OFO

USBP

Other

Twenty-seven of the 286 arrests involved female employees and 27 arrests involved employees in
supervisory positions.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
25

Chart 25: Arrests
286

265
261
256

FY 2014

FY 2015

FY 2016

254

FY 2017

FY 2018

Chart 25 shows that the number of arrests descended steadily from FY 2014 to FY 2017, but
increased by 11 percent from FY 2017 to FY 2018.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
26

Table 1: Employee Arrest Totals by Arrest Type –
FY 2018 Workforce total for FY 2018 =
Type of Arrest
Number of Arrests
Drug/Alcohol-Related Misconduct
Domestic/Family Misconduct
Assault
Corruption
Impeding the Criminal Justice System
Property Crimes
Traffic/Driving Misconduct
Minor Offenses
Crimes Involving Children
Threatening Behavior
Weapons Violations
White Collar Crime
Miscellaneous Misconduct
Sexual Misconduct
Mission-Related Misconduct
Violent Crimes
Total Arrests:
*This data is current as of May 8, 2019

129
57
9
7
17
6
8
1
15
3
8
4
12
7
1
2
286

As shown on Table 1, drug/alcohol-related misconduct was the most common type of arrest.
Breaking this category down, alcohol-related driving offenses, with 94 arrests, were the most
common type of arrest, followed by domestic/family violence with 57 arrests; 35 arrests were
attributable to other drug or alcohol-related misconduct. These three categories were also the
most common types of arrest in FY 2017.
In FY 2018, LER closed a total of 249 cases involving employee arrests, regardless of when the
employee was arrested. For instance, a decision could be issued in FY 2018 on an employee who
was arrested in FY 2017. The traversing of fiscal years is attributable to several factors, which
include due process requirements, requests for extensions, and other case-related issues.
Agency deciding officials issued decisions on 193 cases involving employee arrests. This
number does not include 23 cases where the employee retired or resigned prior to a decision
being issued or 33 cases that were combined with other disciplinary cases on the same employee.
Overall, deciding officials sustained an adverse action in 26 percent of decisions on cases
involving arrests. Chart 26 on the next page shows the breakdown of types of disciplinary actions
decided across all components.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
27
Deciding officials entered into settlement
agreements in 21 percent of arrest cases.
One benefit of settlement agreements is
that the employee waives their right to
appeal the matter as part of the agreement
terms. Only 10 percent of settled cases
resulted in the deciding official determining
that an adverse action was warranted, but
allowing the employee to serve a nonadverse suspension as agreed upon in the
settlement agreement.

Alcohol-Related Driving Offenses

Chart 26: Types of Decisions

23%

26%

51%

Adverse

Non-adverse

Unsubstantiated/Unwarranted

There were 94 arrests CBP-wide involving alcohol-related driving offenses, which accounted for
33 percent of all off-duty arrests of CBP
employees. The FY 2018 total represents a slight
Chart 27: FY 2018 Alcoholdecrease from FY 2017 when there were 96
Related Driving Offenses
alcohol-related driving arrests CBP-wide. Chart
27 illustrates the breakdown of alcohol-related
10%
driving arrests by component. The Other
category on Chart 27 includes employees from
AMO, ES, OPR, and OS.
41%
49%

OFO

USBP

Other

Eighty-eight employees arrested for alcoholrelated driving offenses were LEOs, while six
employees occupy non-law enforcement
positions. Seven alcohol-related driving arrests
involved female employees and six involved
supervisors.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
28
Chart 28 shows the number of alcohol-related driving arrests from FY 2014 to FY 2018.

Chart 28: Alcohol-related Driving Arrests By Year
111

96
94
92
90

FY 2014

FY 2015

FY 2016

FY 2017

FY 2018

In FY 2018, LER closed 109 cases involving alcohol-related driving offenses, regardless of
when the employee was arrested.
Agency deciding officials issued decisions
on 84 cases involving alcohol-related
driving offenses. This number does not
include 6 cases where the employee retired
or resigned prior to a decision being issued
or 19 cases that were combined with other
disciplinary cases on the same employee.

Chart 29: Types of Decisions
7%
23%

Overall, deciding officials sustained an
adverse action in 23 percent of cases
involving alcohol-related driving offenses.
Chart 29 shows the breakdown of types of
disciplinary actions decided across all
components.

70%

Adverse

Non-Adverse

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Unsubstantiated/Unwarranted

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
29

Component Office Response to Alcohol-Related Driving Offenses
On March 9, 2015, USBP implemented the Standardized Post-Employee Arrest Requirements
(SPEAR) process to expediently and consistently apply administrative action to employee’s postalcohol-related driving arrest.
Likewise, on July 15, 2016, OFO implemented a DUI Board process to provide consistent and
expeditious review of alcohol-related driving incidents.
Each process consists of a panel with the delegated authority to propose the appropriate
disciplinary suspension of 1 to 14 days, or an indefinite suspension. Each panel reviews the facts
of the case, conducts a misconduct evaluation to determine whether there is preponderant
evidence to prove the underlying misconduct and whether there is a nexus between the
misconduct and efficiency of the service, and then propose a reasonable penalty, if warranted.
For those DUI cases that also involve aggravating factors, the matter will be referred to DRB.
Chart 30 shows the number of USBP alcohol-related driving arrests from FY 2014 to FY 2018.

Chart 30: USBP Alcohol-Related Driving Arrests by
Year

FY 2014

FY 2015

FY 2016

FY 2017

FY 2018

Chart 31 on the following page shows the number of OFO alcohol-related driving arrests from
FY 2014 to FY 2018.

Chart 31: OFO Alcohol-related Driving Arrests By
Year
48

33
FY 2014

39

36

FY 2015

FY 2016

39

FY 2017

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FY 2018

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
30
Domestic Violence-Related Offenses
Arrests for domestic violence-related offenses accounted for 20 percent of all off-duty arrests of
CBP employees and constituted the second largest type of criminal misconduct. There were 57
domestic violence-related arrests in FY 2018. The FY 2018 total represents a 10.5 percent
increase from FY 2017, when there were 51 domestic violence-related arrests.
Chart 32 shows the breakdown of domestic violence arrests by component. The Other category
on Chart 32 includes employees from AMO, ES, OPR, and OS.

Chart 32: Domestic Violence Arrests by Component

7%
44%
49%

OFO

USBP

Other

Forty-nine out of 57 arrests involved LEOs. Eight female employees were arrested for domestic
violence. Six of the employees arrested in FY 2018 for domestic violence held supervisory
positions.
Chart 33 shows the number of domestic violence arrests from FY 2014 to FY 2018.

Chart 33: Domestic Violence Arrests by Year
63
58

57
51
44

FY 2014

FY 2015

FY 2016

FY 2017

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FY 2018

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
31
In FY 2018, LER closed 44 cases involving domestic violence, regardless of when the employee
was arrested.
Agency deciding officials issued decisions on 32 cases solely involving domestic violence,
regardless of when the employee was arrested. Additionally, in seven cases the employee retired
or resigned prior to a decision being issued. Also, there were five cases that included discipline
in addition to domestic violence or were combined with subsequent other disciplinary cases on
the same employee.
Chart 34 shows the breakdown of types of
disciplinary actions decided across all
components. Overall, deciding officials
sustained an adverse action in 28 percent
of decisions on cases involving domestic
violence. This is an increase from FY
2017, when 19 percent of domestic
violence decisions resulted in an adverse
action. The number of cases closed as
unsubstantiated or unwarranted decreased
from 37 percent in FY 2017 to 31 percent
in FY 2018. This shows that deciding
officials are taking more serious
disciplinary action on domestic violence
cases.

Chart 34: Types of Decisions

28%

31%

41%

Adverse

Non Adverse

Unsubstantiated/Unwarranted

Deciding officials determined that 10 arrests for domestic violence did not warrant disciplinary
action. USBP represented 70 percent of the cases that were closed as not warranting disciplinary
action.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
32

Mandatory Removals of LEOs for Felony Convictions
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7371, LEOs convicted of a federal or state felony are subject to
mandatory removal from the federal service. FY 2018 discipline data reflects that three CBP
employees were removed under this authority. Two were USBP employees assigned to stations
aligned under the Detroit and San Diego Sectors. One was a CBPO employee assigned to a port
within San Diego Field Operations.
Chart 35 shows the number of mandatory removals for felony convictions from FY 2014 to FY
2018.

Chart 35: Mandatory Removals Of Law
Enforecement Officers For Felony Convictions By
Year
5

3

3

3
2

FY 2014

FY 2015

FY 2016

FY 2017

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FY 2018

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
33

Indefinite Suspensions
An indefinite suspension is an adverse action that temporarily places an employee in a non-pay
and non-duty status while awaiting further action. Indefinite suspensions are typically imposed
when the Agency receives information leading to a reasonable belief that an employee
committed criminal misconduct for which the employee may be imprisoned. Indefinite
suspensions may also follow the suspension or revocation of a security clearance when such
clearance is a requirement of the employee’s position. As with all adverse actions, the employee
is entitled to advance written notice of the Agency’s proposal of the indefinite suspension and
due process procedures.
The Agency must provide the employee with notice of the specific event that will terminate the
indefinite suspension (e.g., the employee was found not guilty of the criminal charges) in its
notice of suspension. Agencies must terminate the suspension promptly upon completion of the
event(s) identified at the time it imposed the
Chart 35: Indefinite
suspension. Placing an employee on indefinite
Chart 35: Indefinite
suspension does not preclude an Agency from
Suspensions
Suspensions
taking subsequent administrative action following
23
the conclusion of criminal or administrative
21
proceedings.
16
15

In FY 2018, CBP processed 37 indefinite
suspension actions; 21 from USBP, 15 from OFO,
and 1 from Enterprise Services. Chart 35 shows
indefinite suspensions by component.
A review of the discipline data related to
indefinite suspensions for FY 2017 revealed that
the use of indefinite suspensions increased in FY
2018 with 37 processed compared to 26 processed
in FY 2017.

1
1
Enterprise
Services
Enterprise
Services

OFO
OFO

USBP
USBP

Chart 36 on the following page provides historical data for indefinite suspension actions, the
number of which has fluctuated through the years.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
34

Chart 36: Indefinite Suspensions By Year
45

38

37

26
22

FY 2014

FY 2015

FY 2016

FY 2017

FY 2018

Table 2 identifies the criminal offenses associated with the indefinite suspension in FY 2018.
Table 2: Criminal Offenses Supporting Indefinite Suspensions in FY 2018
Employee Position
Grade
Criminal Offense
Level
Border Patrol Agent

GS-12

Border Patrol Agent

GS-12

Border Patrol Agent
Border Patrol Agent
Border Patrol Agent
Border Patrol Agent
Border Patrol Agent
Border Patrol Agent
Border Patrol Agent

GS-12
GS-12
GS-12
GS-12
GS-12
GS-12
GS-12

Border Patrol Agent

GS-12

Border Patrol Agent

GS-12

Border Patrol Agent
Border Patrol Agent

GS-12
GS-12

Border Patrol Agent
Border Patrol Agent
Border Patrol Agent

GS-12
GS-12
GS-12

Border Patrol Agent
(Intelligence)

GS-12

Possession of a Controlled Substance and Being Under the Influence of
Unknown Narcotics.
Attempted Enticement of a Minor and Possession of Child
Pornography
Concealed and/or Omitted Information During the Application Process
for Naturalization
Production of Child Pornography.
Illegal Sales of Counterfeit Merchandise
Criminal Mischief
Sexual Assault
Aggravated Assault and Endangering a Child
Knowingly Distributing Child Pornography
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law and Falsification of
Records in Federal Investigations
Enticement of a Minor, Receipt of Child Pornography, Access of
Child Pornography with Intent to View
Aggravated Assault w/Deadly Weapon and Assault Family/Household
Member Impeding Breath/Circulation of Blood
Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
Theft of property and tampering with governmental record to
defraud/harm
Evading arrest with a motor vehicle
Conversion of U.S. Property and False Entry in Accounts and Records
Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute Marijuana and Aiding
and Abetting, and Use/Carrying of Firearm During a Drug Crime, and
Bribery: Public Official Accepting a Bribe

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
35
Table 2: Criminal Offenses Supporting Indefinite Suspensions in FY 2018
Employee Position
Grade
Criminal Offense
Level

GS-13

Fraud in Connection with a Major Disaster or Benefits, Wire Fraud,
and Engaging in Monetary Transactions with Criminal Derived
Property
Vehicular Manslaughter
Felonious Assault, and Carrying or Possessing a Firearm When
Committing or Attempting to Commit a Felony
False Statements to Department of Housing Development to Obtain
Home
Sexual Battery
Possession of Child Pornography
Child pornography
Forcibly Assaulting, Impeding, Intimidating and Interfering with a
Federal Officer
Burglary of a Habitation and Robbery
Criminal Sexual Conduct
False Statement or Representation, and False Statements in an
Application for Passport
Forcibly Assaulting, Impeding, Intimidating and Interfering with a
Federal Officer
Forcibly Assaulting, Impeding, Intimidating and Interfering with a
Federal Officer
Cruelty to Animals, Hunting or Discharge of Firearms in Certain
Places Prohibited, Dumping trash, companion animal, etc., on
highway, public or private property

GS-6

Obtaining Controlled Substances by Fraud

GS-13

Lewd and Lascivious Acts with a Child

GS-13

Murder

GS-13

Capital Murder

GS-13
GS-13

Making a False Declaration before a Grand Jury
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

CBP Agriculture Specialist
CBP Officer

GS-12
GS-9

CBP Officer

GS-11

CBP Officer
CBP Officer
CBP Officer
CBP Officer

GS-12
GS-12
GS-12
GS-12

CBP Officer
CBP Officer
CBP Officer

GS-12
GS-12
GS-12

CBP Officer

GS-12

CBP Officer

GS-12

CBP Officer

GS-12

CBP Officer (Prog
Manager)
Law Enforcement
Communications Assistant
Supervisory Border Patrol
Agent
Supervisory Border Patrol
Agent
Supervisory Border Patrol
Agent
Supervisory Border Patrol
Agent (CDI)
Supervisory CBPO

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
36

Supervisory Discipline
CBP supervisors are expected to exemplify the highest standards of integrity and professionalism
and when they fail to meet these expectations, supervisors are also subject to discipline. A
review of the FY 2018 discipline data for supervisory personnel revealed an increase in the
number of cases involving supervisory discipline in reference to FY 2017; 497 actions were
processed in FY 2018 compared to 482 in FY 2017. Chart 37 shows supervisory discipline over
the past five years.

Chart 37: Supervisory Discipline By Year
532
482

497

396

257

FY 2014

FY 2015

FY 2016

FY 2017

FY 2018

The most common type of misconduct committed by supervisory employees was failure to
safeguard government-issued property. The other most common types of misconduct committed
by supervisory employees were unprofessional behavior or statements, not exercising due
caution in the operation of a GOV, failing to follow policy, and careless performance of or
inattention to duties.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
37

Use of Force Allegations
Every day, CBP’s uniformed professionals face life-threatening confrontations as they work to
secure America’s borders. When confronted with dangerous situations, officers and agents strike
a delicate balance between officer safety and exercising Use of Force (UoF) in a manner
consistent with Agency policy. Each year, CBP receives and reviews hundreds of allegations
pertaining to UoF incidents. When these cases involve excessive UoF or civil rights abuse
allegations and prosecution is declined by the U.S. Attorney’s Office or the local prosecutor, the
matter is subject to an administrative investigation to determine if an employee’s actions,
although not unlawful, violated Agency policy or procedure.
The National Use of Force Review Board (UFRB) reviews all significant UoF incidents,
including the use of firearms and UoF resulting in serious injury or death. The local UFRBs
review all Less-than-Lethal UoF incidents not addressed by the National UFRB. Only if there is
an affirmative determination by the respective board is the case routed for corrective action.
Both the National and local UFRBs are charged with providing three deliverables following their
review:
A decision as to whether or not the application of UoF was consistent with the CBP UoF
Policy;
A decision as to whether or not the incident should be referred for further investigation of
potential misconduct or administrative violations; and
Any observations and or recommendations regarding tactics, training, equipment,
operational deficiencies, safety issues, or administrative compliance matters.
National UFRB
The National UFRB is comprised of senior
officials from across CBP as well as officials from
the DHS OIG, DHS Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties, ICE OPR, and the Department of
Justice Civil Rights Division.

Chart 38: National
UFRB Cases by Component
7%

93%

During FY 2018, three National UFRBs convened
reviewing a total of 14 incidents the result of
which led to 7 recommendations to tactics,
training, and operational issues. Chart 38 shows
the breakdown of cases presented to the National
UFRB by component.
USBP

Local UFRB

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OFO

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
38
The local UFRBs conduct an objective review of
all Less-than-Lethal UoF incidents not addressed
by the National UFRB. The local UFRBs provide
CBP senior leadership with an objective
assessment of Less-than-Lethal UoF incidents
from a regional committee of CBP leadership.

Chart 39: Local UFRB
Cases by Component
4%
15%

During FY 2018, 42 local UFRBs were held,
reviewing a total of 253 Less-than-Lethal UoF
incidents and 20 recommendations regarding
tactics, training, and operational issues were
made. Chart 39 shows the breakdown of cases
presented to local UFRBs by component.

81%

USBP

Cases Processed by Management

OFO

AMO

All other cases, including the use of physical techniques not resulting in death or serious bodily
injury, are referred to component management for review and consideration of disciplinary
action.
In FY 2018, CBP closed a total of 184 cases involving alleged inappropriate UoF, regardless of
when the UoF occurred.

Chart 40: Types of Decisions
3%

97%

Disciplinary

Unsubstantiated

Excluding one case where the employee resigned
prior to a decision being issued, deciding officials
issued decisions on 183 cases involving UoF, 85
percent of which involved USBP employees. In a
large percentage of cases involving an allegedly
inappropriate UoF, neither the complainant nor
CBP could confirm the identity of the person who
allegedly used inappropriate force.
Overall, deciding officials sustained disciplinary
action in three percent of cases involving UoF.
One employee received a suspension and two
employees received reprimands. Deciding
officials determined that 180 cases of alleged
inappropriate UoF did not warrant disciplinary or
corrective action.

Chart 40 shows the breakdown of types of disciplinary actions decided across all components.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
39

Probationary Period Terminations
The probationary or trial period is the final step in
the examination process of a newly-hired
employee and is considered a critical assessment
period. The probationary period helps to ensure
only the best candidates continue with careers in
the Federal Government.
Probationary or trial period appointees may be
terminated for any deficiency in performance or
conduct with minimal procedural requirements.
After termination, the former employee has
limited avenues to appeal. Therefore, the
probationary/trial period is an effective tool for
the Agency to review an employee’s potential
prior to final appointment to a position.

Chart 41: Probationary
Terminations
USBP

16

OFO

11

AMO

1

OT

1

Agency-wide, CBP processed 29 probationary terminations in FY 2018, which represents
approximately 1 percent of the CBP new hires subject to a probationary period. This figure
includes all probationary terminations processed by LER and those processed by CBP’s training
academies.
Chart 41 illustrates the number of probationary terminations by component in FY 2018.
Chart 42 represents the number of Probationary Terminations for the last five fiscal years.
Probationary terminations have declined since FY 2014.

Chart 42 : Probationary Terminations
103
80
55

51

29

FY 2014

FY 2015

FY 2016

FY 2017

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FY 2018

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
40

Drug Free Workplace
As the guardians of our Nation’s borders, CBP is a leader among federal agencies in the
interdiction of illegal drugs. The very nature of CBP’s mission creates an important connection
between an individual’s use of illegal drugs and employment with our Agency.

In FY 2018, CBP tested 13 percent of the 56,000 employees in testing designated positions. This
equated to performing 7,497 drug tests, only 10 of which were performed due to reasonable
suspicion of drug use. These tests resulted in 19 employees testing positive for drug use 5. This
means that less than one-half of 1 percent of drug tests resulted in a positive response. Chart 43
shows that the number of drug tests conducted since FY 2014 has increased. Although the
number of tests conducted has increased, the rate of employees testing positive for drugs has
consistently remained less than one-half of one percent.
Over the past five years, marijuana has remained the most common drug for which employees
test positive. In FY 2018, employees also tested positive for cocaine, opioids, and
amphetamines.
Employees who tested positive in FY 2018 included nine CBPOs, six BPAs, one CBP
Agriculture Specialist, one Intelligence Research Specialist, one Law Enforcement
Communications Assistant, and one Enforcement Analysis Specialist.
In FY 2018, LER closed a total of 14 cases involving positive drug tests, regardless of when the
employee tested positive. Excluding the 10 cases where the employee retired or resigned prior to
a decision being issued, deciding officials issued decisions on 4 cases involving positive drug
tests. Deciding officials mitigated the penalty in three cases resulting in one demotion, one
adverse suspension settlement, and one reprimand. A deciding official sustained a removal in one
case.

5

It is considered a positive result when an employee refuses to undergo a drug test.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
41

Conclusion
Integrity is a core value that guides each and every CBP employee and is reflected in the work
the Agency performs every day. The public has placed a great deal of trust in CBP and with that
trust comes an expectation that CBP employees will perform their duties with a level of integrity
that includes transparency, accountability, and professionalism. CBP employees are guided by
these principles, both on and off duty. Those who breach the public trust by engaging in
misconduct will continue to be held accountable for their actions.
In addition to efforts to increase transparency through the release of an annual discipline report,
CBP will continue to improve the complaints and discipline systems as part of the CBP Integrity
and Personal Accountability Strategy. Based upon the recommendations of multiple crosscomponent work groups, and external studies, CBP has implemented changes to the scope of the
cases presented to the DRB in FY 2019 to ensure that discipline corresponds consistently with
the severity of the offense. Specifically beginning in FY 2019, the DRB is no longer penalty
based; instead, the DRB reviews cases involving serious misconduct that harms the agency’s
mission in broad ways and cuts across all geographic and component lines. Additional changes
to the DRB process include quarterly reporting to senior-level leadership for visibility of certain
proposals and decisions made on disciplinary cases as well as quarterly knowledge sharing
executive forums for senior-level leadership to discuss decisions made on disciplinary cases
during the previous quarter.
For HRM, improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the CBP discipline process remains a
top priority. A committed partnership is vital to the success of CBP’s discipline process and
HRM will continue to work collaboratively with all stakeholders to enhance and expedite the
processing of discipline cases as CBP moves forward in FY 2019.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
42
CB APPENDIX – 1P
Employees by Office
Office
Office of the Commissioner

Number of Employees
954

Office of Public Affairs
Immediate Office of the Commissioner
Office of Congressional Affairs
Office of Professional Responsibility
Intergovernmental Public Liaison
Joint Field Commands
Joint Task Force - West
Office of Trade Relations
Policy
Privacy and Diversity Office
Office of Field Operations
U.S. Border Patrol
Enterprise Services
Office of Accountability
Immediate Office of the EAC
Office of Acquisition
Office of Facilities and Asset Management
Office of Finance
Office of Human Resources Management
Office of Information and Technology
Office of Programming
Office of Training and Development
Air and Marine Operations
Office of Trade
Operations Support
Immediate Office of the EAC
Information and Incident Coordination Center
Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate
Law Enforcement Officer/Agent Safety and Compliance
Office of International Affairs
Office of Intelligence
Planning, Analysis & Requirements Evaluation Directorate
Policy Directorate
Office of Chief Counsel
Total Employees:

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

78
30
22
626
31
25
23
10
6
103
29,684
21,160
4,416
76
51
254
557
335
661
1,881
8
593
1,658
942
841
12
16
259
80
173
276
24
1
359
60,014

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
43
APPENDIX - 2
U. S. Border Patrol DRB Cases
Case Intake
A total of 130 cases involving 117
USBP employees were presented to
DRB panels in FY 2018. 6 This is
slightly higher than last year, which
had 121 cases on 104 employees. The
type of USBP employee most likely to
have a case presented to DRB is a
non-supervisory GS-12 law
enforcement officer with 15 years of
federal service. USBP employees
with cases presented to DRB
represent the average employee with a
case presented to DRB.

Chart 44: USBP DRB Cases

Supervisory misconduct presented to
DRB remained fairly consistent this
year with 16 percent of USBP DRB
cases involving supervisors. CBP
wide, the rate of supervisory
misconduct presented to DRB was 15
percent. Last year, 17 percent of
USBP DRB cases involved
supervisors.
Allegations of misconduct involving
employees within USBP made up 46
percent of FY 2018 DRB cases. This number has remained fairly consistent over the past three
fiscal years. Chart 44 shows the breakdown of which sector each of the USBP employees worked
for with a case presented to DRB in FY 2018.

6

When an employee is the subject of more than one investigative report, the case materials are
combined and a single proposal notice is issued.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
44
DRB Proposals/Determinations
DRB issued 118 proposals/determinations to 117 USBP employees who had a case presented to
DRB in FY 2018. Most cases, or 74 percent, received a proposed adverse action from DRB.
Chart 45 below shows the total number of each type of DRB proposal/determination.

Chart 45: DRB Proposals/ Determinations

Removal

Adverse Suspension

Non-Adverse
Suspension

Unsubstantiated/
Unwarranted

Informal Discipline

Chart 46 on the following page shows the type of proposal by adverse or non-adverse action by
sector or office. El Paso had the largest number of non-adverse proposals/determinations from
DRB with 40 percent of their cases receiving a non-adverse proposal/determination. This was
due to El Paso having a number of related cases that were presented to DRB and closed.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
45

Chart 46: Proposal Types
Big Bend
Blaine
Del Rio
Detroit
El Centro
El Paso
Grand Forks
Havre
Houlton
Laredo
Rio Grande Valley
San Diego
Spokane
Swanton
Tucson
Yuma

The most common misconduct DRB issued proposals for USBP employees in FY 2018 were:
1. Dishonesty
Chart 47: Dishonesty
a. Dishonesty was the most
common type of misconduct
Big Bend
DRB reviewed for USBP
employees, with 27 percent of
Blaine
USBP cases receiving a
Buffalo
proposal related to dishonesty.
b. Ninety three percent of cases
Del Rio
where DRB found that an
El Paso
employee engaged in
Laredo
dishonesty resulted in a
proposed adverse action.
Rio Grande Valley
i. DRB proposed a nonSan Diego
adverse suspension in
two cases. In these
Tucson
cases, the charge did
Yuma
not include the element
of the employee
knowingly providing false information.
c. Chart 47 shows the breakdown of dishonesty cases by sector.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
46
d. Real Case – BPA received a proposed removal when he took a rowing machine
home and made false statements when confronted about the matter.
2.

DUI
a. Eighty percent of cases
Chart 48: DUI
where DRB found that an
employee drove a vehicle
Big Bend
while under the influence
resulted in a proposed
adverse action. Forty six
El Paso
percent of the proposals
were for an adverse
suspension, while 26 percent Rio Grande Valley
were a proposed removal.
b. Chart 48 shows the
San Diego
breakdown of DUI cases by
sector.
Tucson
c. Real Case – BPA received a
proposed 45 day suspension
when he was arrested for
DUI on two separate occasions within the same week. He was AWOL for two
days as a result, and also lost his duty belt, firearm, pistol magazines, radio, baton,
and handcuffs.

3. Misuse of a GOV
a. One Hundred percent of
cases where DRB found an
employee misused a GOV
resulted in a proposed
adverse action. Seventy
seven percent of cases were
an adverse suspension, with
23 percent were a proposed
removal.
b. Chart 49 shows the
breakdown of GOV cases by
sector.
c. Real Case – BPA received a
proposed 20 day suspension
after he drove a marked
service vehicle to attend a
family matter.

Chart 49: GOV Misuse
El Centro
El Paso
Havre
San Diego
Swanton
Tucson

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
47
In the DUI and dishonesty categories, there were five cases where DRB proposed a non-adverse
action contrary to the expectations of LER Intake.
Decisions on DRB Proposals
In FY 2018, LER closed a total of
133 USBP DRB cases, regardless
of when DRB panel was convened
or in what fiscal year the proposal
was served. For example, a case
presented in FY 2016 could
potentially have a decision issued
in FY 2017. The traversing of
fiscal years is attributable to several
factors, which include due process
requirements, requests for
extensions, and other case-related
issues.

Chart 50: Decisions
Big Bend
Blaine
Buffalo
Del Rio
El Centro
El Paso
Grand Forks
Havre
Houlton

Deciding officials issued decisions
on 89 USBP DRB proposals in
FY18. Chart 50 shows the number
of decisions issued by sector.

Laredo
Rio Grande Valley

USBP deciding officials sustained
an adverse action in 69 percent7 of
decisions on DRB proposals. This
number is close to the CBP-wide
rate of 79 percent of decisions on

Chart 51: Types of Decisions

Adverse total
7

Non adverse

San Diego
Spokane
Swanton
Tucson
Yuma

DRB proposals being for an adverse action. Due
to the consideration of mitigating Douglas
factors, along with additional information
provided during the reply period, it is not
surprising that such a large number of proposed
adverse actions are mitigated. Chart 51 shows
the breakdown of types of disciplinary actions
decided across all sectors.

Unsubstatiated

This number includes eight cases where the deciding official sustained an adverse action but
implemented a non-adverse action due to the employee entering into a settlement agreement.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
48
Chart 52 shows the type of decision by sector. El Paso had the largest percentage of non-adverse
decisions, with 54 percent of their DRB cases closed by deciding officials as unsubstantiated or
warranting non-adverse action.

Chart 52: Decisions by Sector
Big Bend
Blaine
Buffalo
Del Rio
El Centro
El Paso
Grand Forks
Havre
Houlton
Laredo
Rio Grande Valley
San Diego
Spokane
Swanton
Tucson
Yuma

1

1

2
2

1
2
2

2
6

1

1

6

1

11

1
1
1

5
3

2

1
1
1
1
1

1

5

7

5
2

1
Unsubstantiated

Non Adverse

Adverse

USBP deciding officials determined that three DRB proposals did not warrant disciplinary action.
The proposals in these cases involved the following types of misconduct:
Inappropriate Association
Unprofessional Conduct
USBP deciding officials entered into settlement agreements in 17 percent of DRB cases. This
number is lower than the CBP-wide rate of 16 percent of DRB cases ending in settlement
agreements. One benefit of settlement agreements is that the employee waives their right to
appeal the matter as part of the agreement. Nine percent of settled cases resulted in the deciding
official determining that an adverse action was warranted, but allowing the employee to serve a
lessoned suspension due to entering into a settlement agreement.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
49
USBP deciding officials entered into settlement agreements in 17 percent of DRB cases. This
number is higher than the CBP-wide rate of 16 percent of DRB cases ending in settlement
agreements. One benefit of settlement agreements is that the employee waives their right to
appeal the matter as part of the agreement. Nine percent of settled cases resulted in the deciding
official determining that an adverse action was warranted, but allowing the employee to serve a
lessoned suspension due to entering into a settlement agreement.
Rates of mitigation on common misconduct DRB issued proposals for:
1. Dishonesty
a. USBP deciding officials sustained DRB’s proposal outright in 46 percent of
dishonesty cases.
i. This rate was higher than OFO’s rate of 15 percent.
b. Overall, 66 percent of USBP cases where DRB found dishonesty resulted in a
decision to implement adverse action.
i. This rate was higher than OFO’s rate of 62 percent.
ii. This rate was higher than the CBP-wide rate of 58 percent of dishonesty
cases receiving a decision to implement adverse action.
c. USBP deciding officials entered into LCAs in seven percent of dishonesty cases.
i. This rate was lower than OFO’s rate of 19 percent.
d. USBP deciding officials determined the misconduct was unsubstantiated in two
dishonesty cases.
i. Big Bend Sector and Tucson represented the unsubstantiated dishonesty
decisions.
e. Dishonesty was also one the most common types of misconduct DRB issued
proposals for OFO.
2. Driving Under the Influence
f. USBP deciding officials sustained DRB’s proposal outright in just two cases that
involved a DUI.
i. OFO deciding officials also sustained DRB’s proposal in three cases that
involved a DUI.
g. Overall, 40 percent of USBP cases that involved a DUI resulted in a decision to
implement adverse action.
i. This rate was substantially lower than OFO’s rate of 92 percent.
ii. This rate was lower than the CBP-wide rate of 68 percent of DUI cases
receiving a decision to implement adverse action.
h. No USBP deciding officials determined the misconduct was unsubstantiated in a
DUI case.
i. DUI was also one of the most common misconduct types that the DRB issued
proposals for within OFO.
3. Misuse of a GOV
j. USBP deciding officials sustained DRB’s proposal outright in 22 percent of
misuse of a GOV cases.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
50
k. Overall, 55 percent of USBP cases that involved misuse of a GOV resulted in a
decision to implement adverse action.
l. No USBP deciding officials entered into a LCA in a misuse of a GOV case.
m. One USBP deciding official determined the misconduct deserved a counseling
memo in misuse of a GOV case.
Timeliness
In FY 2015, HRM implemented several process improvements and worked collaboratively with
stakeholders to refine the discipline process in an effort to improve timeliness of actions. HRM
developed a case processing goal of 170 days for DRB cases. As of September 30, 2018, the
average case processing time for USBP DRB cases that closed during FY 2018 was 131 days.
This number is lower than the average of 151 days in which all FY 2018 DRB cases closed.
Considering all of the sectors that closed five or more DRB cases during FY 2018, El Paso and
Tucson Sectors had the greatest number of cases closed in more than 170 days, with 20 percent of
El Paso cases closing in more than 170 days and 29 percent of Tucson cases closing in more than
170 days. El Paso Sector closed the most cases of any other sector in FY 2018.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
51
APPENDIX – 3
OFO DRB Cases
Case Intake
A total of 122 allegations of misconduct
involving 107 OFO employees were presented
to DRB panels in FY 2018. 8 The type of OFO
employee most likely to have a case presented
to DRB is a non-supervisory GS-12 law
enforcement officer with 18 years of federal
service. OFO employees with cases presented
to DRB had slightly more experience than the
average employee with a case presented to
DRB, who had 15 years of federal service.
Supervisory misconduct presented to DRB this
year accounted for 12 percent of OFO DRB
cases. That is an increase from FY2017, in
which only 7 percent of OFO cases involved
supervisors. CBP wide, the rate of
supervisory misconduct presented to DRB was
15 percent, the same as the previous year.

Chart 54: DRB Cases
Agriculture
Atlanta
Baltimore
Boston
Buffalo
Cargo
Chicago
Detroit
El Paso
Houston
Laredo
Los Angeles
Miami
Nat'l Targeting
New York
Planning

Allegations of misconduct involving
employees within OFO made up 43 percent of
FY 2018 DRB cases. This number has
remained fairly consistent over the past four
fiscal years. Chart 54 shows the breakdown of
which field office each of the 107 OFO
employees with a case presented to the DRB in
FY 2018 worked for.

Preclearance
San Diego
San Francisco
Seattle
Tampa
Tucson

DRB Proposals/Determinations
DRB issued proposals to 94 of the 107 OFO employees who had a case presented to DRB in FY
2018. Most cases, or 89 percent, received a proposed adverse action from DRB. Chart 55 on the
following page shows the total number of each type of DRB proposal/determination.

8

When an employee is the subject of more than one investigative report, the case materials are
combined and a single proposal notice is issued.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
52

Chart 55: DRB Proposals/Determinations
52
32

8
Removal

Adverse Suspension

Non-adverse
Suspension

1

1

Reprimand

Counseling

Chart 56 shows the type of proposal by adverse or non-adverse action by field office. El Paso
and Houston tied for the largest number of non-adverse proposals from DRB with two each. In
El Paso, that constituted 50 percent of their DRB cases receiving a non-adverse proposal whereas
it constituted only 18 percent of the DRB cases from Houston.

Chart 56: Proposal Types

Adverse

Non Adverse

Unsubstantiated

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
53
The most common misconduct DRB issued proposals for OFO employees in FY 2018 were:
1. Dishonesty
a. Dishonesty was the most
common type of misconduct
DRB reviewed for OFO
employees, with 27 percent of
cases receiving a proposal related
to dishonesty.
b. 100 percent of cases where DRB
found that an employee engaged
in dishonesty resulted in a
proposed adverse action. All of
the proposals were for removal.
c. Chart 57 shows the breakdown of
dishonesty cases by field office.
d. Real Case – DRB proposed the
removal of a CBPO who married
under false pretenses in order to
circumvent immigration.
2. Failure to Follow Policy
a. Seventy-seven percent of cases
where DRB found that an
employee failed to follow policy
resulted in a proposed adverse
action.
b. Chart 58 shows the breakdown of
failure to follow policy cases by
field office.
c. Real Case – DRB proposed the
removal of a MSS who was
arrested for shoplifting and failed
to report the arrest.

Chart 57: Dishonesty
Agriculture
Boston
Buffalo
Cargo
Chicago
Detroit
El Paso
Houston
Laredo
New York
San Diego
Seattle
Tampa
Tucson

Chart 58: Failure to Follow
Policy
Buffalo
Chicago
Detroit
El Paso
Houston
Laredo
Los Angeles
Miami
San Diego
Tucson

3. DUI
a. Ninety-three percent of cases where DRB found an employee drove a vehicle
while under the influence resulted in a proposed adverse action. Roughly half of
the proposals were for removal and the other half were for suspensions.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
54
b. Chart 59 shows the
breakdown of DUI cases by
field office.
c. Real Case – DRB proposed
the removal of a CBPO who
was charged with Felony
DUI after crashing into
another vehicle while driving
the wrong way on the
interstate.

Atlanta
Boston
Buffalo
Chicago
Detroit
Houston
New York
San Diego

In the one case in which the DRB did not
Seattle
propose adverse action, it was presented to
DRB because the CBPO was charged with
one Charge of Conduct Unbecoming for his DUI. He was also charged with Failure to Follow
Leave and Attendance Policy for two instances of being tardy to work and not calling in
beforehand. He also had a prior 1 day suspension for AWOL. So, the prior discipline plus the
misconduct in addition to the DUI would typically have called for a proposal of adverse action.
Decisions on DRB Proposals
In FY 2018, LER closed a total of 98 OFO DRB
cases, regardless of when DRB panel was
convened or in what fiscal year the proposal was
served. For example, a case presented in FY
2017 could potentially have a decision issued in
FY 2018. The traversing of fiscal years is
attributable to several factors, which include due
process requirements, requests for extensions,
and other case related issues.

Chart 60: Types of Decision

35%

62%

Excluding twelve cases in which the employee
resigned or retired and the one case in which the
DRB issued a counseling, deciding officials
issued decisions on 73 OFO DRB proposals.
Chart 60 shows the type of decisions issued.

3%

Adverse

Unsubstantiated

Non-Adverse

OFO deciding officials sustained an adverse action in 62 percent of decisions on DRB proposals.
This number is slightly below the CBP-wide rate of 70 percent of decisions on DRB proposals
being for an adverse action. Due to the consideration of mitigating Douglas factors, along with
additional information provided during the reply period, it is not surprising that such a large
number of proposed adverse actions are mitigated.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
55
Chart 61 shows the type of decision by field office. Houston and San Francisco had the largest
number of non-adverse decisions with six and five cases respectively. This is not surprising, as
those two offices also had the largest number of non-adverse proposals from DRB.

Chart 61: Decision types
Tucson
Tampa
Seattle
San Francisco
San Diego
Preclearance
PPAE
New York
NTC
Miami
Los Angeles
Laredo
Houston
El Paso
Detroit
Chicago
Cargo & Conveyance Sec
Buffalo
Boston
Baltimore
Atlanta
Agriculture Programs & Trade…

3

1

3

1

1
2

5
6

1

1

1
1
4
1
1

2

1
3

2
4
4

2

2

1
6

1
3

1

1

1
1
4
2
1

1
2

1
3

1

OFO deciding officials determined that four DRB proposals did not warrant disciplinary action.
The proposals in these four cases involved Lack of Candor and/or Failure to Follow Policy.
OFO deciding officials entered into settlement agreements in 35 percent of DRB cases. This
number is higher than the CBP-wide rate of 16 percent of DRB cases ending in settlement
agreements. One benefit of settlement agreements is that the employee waives their right to
appeal the matter as part of the agreement. Thirty-one percent of settled cases resulted in the
deciding official determining that an adverse action was warranted, but allowing the employee to
serve a non-adverse suspension due to entering into a settlement agreement.
Rates of mitigation on common misconduct DRB issued proposals for:
1. Dishonesty
a. OFO deciding officials sustained DRB’s proposal outright in 15 percent of
dishonesty cases.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
56
i. This rate was roughly half of USBP’s rate of 33 percent.
b. Overall, 62 percent of OFO cases where DRB found dishonesty resulted in a
decision to implement adverse action.
i. This rate was very close to USBP’s rate of 66 percent.
ii. This rate was higher than the CBP-wide rate of 58 percent of dishonesty
cases receiving a decision to implement adverse action.
c. OFO deciding officials entered into LCAs in 19 percent of dishonesty cases.
i. This rate was higher than USBP’s rate of six percent.
d. The OFO deciding official determined in two cases that the misconduct was
unsubstantiated in a dishonesty case.
e. Dishonesty was also the most common type of misconduct DRB issued proposals
for USBP.
2. Failure to Follow Policy
a. OFO deciding officials sustained DRB’s proposal outright in 10 percent of failure
to follow policy cases.
b. Overall, 71 percent of OFO cases where DRB found that an employee failed to
follow policy resulted in a decision to implement adverse action.
i. This rate was close to the CBP-wide rate of 75 percent of failure to follow
policy cases receiving a decision to implement adverse action.
c. The OFO deciding official entered into a LCA in three failure to follow policy
cases.
d. One OFO deciding official determined the misconduct was unsubstantiated in a
failure to follow policy case.
3. DUI
a. OFO deciding officials sustained DRB’s proposal outright in three cases that
involved a DUI.
i. USBP deciding officials also sustained DRB’s proposal in just three cases
that involved a DUI.
b. Overall, 91 percent of OFO cases that involved a DUI resulted in a decision to
implement adverse action.
i. This rate was higher than USBP’s rate of 40 percent.
ii. This rate was higher than the CBP-wide rate of 68 percent of DUI cases
receiving a decision to implement adverse action.
c. No OFO deciding official determined the misconduct was unsubstantiated in a
DUI case.
d. DUI was the second most common misconduct DRB issued proposals for USBP.
Timeliness
In FY 2015, HRM implemented several process improvements and worked collaboratively with
stakeholders to refine the discipline process in an effort to improve timeliness of actions. HRM
developed a case processing goal of 170 days for DRB cases for FY 2018. As of September 30,
2018, the average case processing time for FY 2018 OFO DRB cases was 174 days. Although
this number is slightly higher than the case processing goal HRM established, it is significantly
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
57
longer than the average of 151 days that all DRB cases closed in FY 2018. The statistics were
significantly impacted by several cases that took more than a year from the DRB date to
complete. All three involved companion and/or additional cases. Two of the three cases needed
to be re-presented to the DRB for reconsideration of identified misconduct.
Out of the field offices that closed five or more DRB cases during FY 2018, Houston, Los
Angeles, and San Francisco had the majority of their DRB cases take more than 170 days.
Houston had 7 out of 12, or 58 percent take longer than 170 days. Los Angeles had 3 out of 5, or
60 percent take longer than 170 days. San Francisco had 4 out of 7 or 57 percent take longer
than 170 days. The New York Field Office closed the most cases of any other field office in FY
2018, with 14 cases and only one of its cases closed in more than 170 days. This is a significant
reversal from the previous year, when 71 percent of their DRB cases took longer than 180 days
to complete.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
58
APPENDIX 4
Air and Marine Operations DRB Cases
Case Intake
A total of four allegations of misconduct involving four AMO employees were presented to DRB
panels in FY 2018. The type of AMO employee
most likely to have a case presented to DRB is a
Chart 62: By Organization
non-supervisory GS-13 law enforcement officer
with 19 years of federal service. AMO employees
with cases presented to DRB tend to have slightly
Southeast Region
2
more federal service than the average of 10 years.
Supervisors made up 25 percent of AMO cases
presented to DRB. CBP-wide, the rate of
supervisory misconduct presented to DRB was 15
percent.

National Air Security
Operations

Allegations of misconduct involving employees
Air and Marine
within AMO made up one percent of FY 2018
Operartions Center
DRB cases compared to three percent in FY 2017.
Chart 62 shows the breakdown of which
organization within AMO each of the four
employees with a case presented to DRB in FY 2018 worked.

1

1

DRB Proposals/Determinations

Chart 63: DRB Proposals
2

2

DRB issued four determinations to the four AMO
employees who had a case presented to DRB in
FY 2018. All of the AMO cases received a
proposed adverse action from DRB. Chart 63
shows the total number of each type of DRB
proposal/determination.
Chart 64 on the following page shows the
number of adverse actions proposed by
organization within AMO.

Adverse Suspension

Removal

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
59

Chart 64: Adverse Proposals by Organization
Southeast Region

2

National Air Security
Operations

1

Air and Marine Operations
Center

1

The most common misconduct DRB issued proposals for AMO employees in FY 2018 was
Driving Under the Influence.
Decisions on DRB Proposals
Excluding one case where the employee resigned prior to a decision being issued, deciding
officials issued decisions on three AMO DRB cases, regardless of when DRB panel was
convened or in what fiscal year the proposal was served. For example, a case presented in FY
2017 could potentially have a decision issued in FY
2018. The traversing of fiscal years is attributable
Chart 65: Types of
to several factors, which include due process
Decisions
requirements, requests for extensions, and other
case related issues.

33%

67%

Adverse

Non Adverse

AMO deciding officials sustained an adverse action
in 67 percent of decisions on DRB proposals. This
numbers is greater than the CBP-wide rate of 31
percent of decisions on DRB proposals being for an
adverse action. Due to the consideration of
mitigating Douglas factors, along with additional
information provided during the reply period, it is
not surprising that proposed adverse actions are
sometimes mitigated. Chart 65 shows the
breakdown of types of disciplinary actions decided
across all organizations within AMO.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
60
Chart 66 shows the type of decision by organization within AMO.

Chart 66: Decision Types

Southeast Region
2

National Air Security
Operations

Non-adverse

1

Adverse

Timeliness
AMO deciding officials closed DRB cases in an average of 100 days, compared to an average of
174 days in FY 2017. This is substantially lower than the overall average of 151 days for all
DRB cases closed in FY 2018.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
61
APPENDIX 5
Enterprise Services DRB Cases
Case Intake
A total of 15 allegations of misconduct involving 13 ES employees were presented to DRB panels
in FY 2018.9 The type of ES employee most likely to have a case presented to DRB is a nonsupervisory GS-12 with 14 years of federal
Chart 67: By Organization
service. ES employees with cases presented to
DRB tend to have slightly more federal service
than the average of 10 years.
Supervisors made up seven percent of ES cases
presented to DRB. CBP-wide, the rate of
supervisory misconduct presented to DRB was 15
percent.
Allegations of misconduct involving employees
within ES made up five percent of FY 2018 DRB
cases, an increase from the two percent in FY
2017. Chart 67 shows the breakdown for which
organization within ES each of the 13 employees
with a case presented to DRB in FY 2018 worked.

HRM

OFAM

OIT

1

2

10

DRB Proposals/Determinations

Chart 68: DRB
Proposals/Determinations
8

Excluding one case that was placed on hold,
DRB issued 12 determinations to 12 ES
employees who had a case presented to DRB in
FY 2018. Most cases, or 75 percent, received a
proposed adverse action from DRB. Chart 68
shows the total number of each type of DRB
proposal/determination.

3
1
Removal

Adverse
Suspension

Reprimand

9

When an employee is the subject of more than one investigative report, the case materials are
combined and a single proposal notice is issued.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
62
Chart 69 shows the type of proposal by adverse or non-adverse action by organization within ES.
The proposed adverse actions from ES involved
different types of misconduct, but the most
common was Absence Without Leave. In no
particular order, the following represents some of
the other misconduct that ES employees were
charged with:
Lack of Candor
Neglect of Duty
Inappropriate Association
A review of the non-adverse DRB proposal was
conducted and it was found that local
management felt the case warranted adverse action
contrary to the expectations of Labor and
Employee Relations (LER) Intake.
Decisions on DRB Proposals

Chart 69: Type of Proposal

HRM

1

OFAM

2
1

OIT

8

Non-Adverse

Adverse

Chart 70: Decisions

Excluding three cases where the employee retired
or resigned prior to a decision being issued,
deciding officials issued decisions on nine ES
DRB cases, regardless of when DRB panel was
convened or in what fiscal year the proposal was
served. For example, a case presented in FY 2017
could potentially have a decision issued in FY
2018. The traversing of fiscal years is attributable
to several factors, which include due process
requirements, requests for extensions, and other
case related issues. Chart 70 shows which
organizations within ES issued decisions in FY
2018.

4

4

1

OFAM

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OIT

HRM

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
63
ES deciding officials sustained an adverse action
in 67 percent of decisions on DRB proposals.
This numbers is greater than the CBP-wide rate
of 31 percent of decisions on DRB proposals
being for an adverse action. Due to the
consideration of mitigating Douglas factors,
along with additional information provided
during the reply period, it is not surprising that
proposed adverse actions are sometimes
mitigated. Chart 71 shows the breakdown of
types of disciplinary actions decided across all
organizations within ES.

Chart 71: Types of Decisions

33%

67%

Chart 72 shows the type of decision by
organization within ES. ES deciding officials
Adverse
Non Adverse
entered into settlement agreements in 17 percent
of DRB cases. This number is the same as the CBP-wide rate of 17 percent of DRB cases ending
in settlement agreements. One benefit of settlement agreements is that the employee waives their
right to appeal the matter as part of the agreement.

Chart 72: Decision Types
HRM
1
3

OIT
1

OFAM
4
Non-Adverse

Adverse

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
64
Rate of mitigation on common misconduct DRB issued proposals for:
1. AWOL
a. ES deciding officials sustained DRB’s proposal in 100 percent of the AWOL
cases, although these cases also involved other charges.
b. Overall, 100 percent of ES cases where DRB found AWOL resulted in a
decision to implement adverse action.
i. This rate is in line with the CBP-wide rate of 100 percent of AWOL
cases receiving a decision to implement adverse action. These
cases also involved other charges.
Timeliness
ES deciding officials closed DRB cases in an average of 159 days, compared to an average of
105 days in FY 2017. This is slightly higher than the overall average of 151 days for all DRB
cases closed in FY 2018.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
65
APPENDIX – 6
Office of the Commissioner DRB Cases
Case Intake
A total of two allegations of misconduct involving two Office of the Commissioner (OC)
employees were presented to DRB panels in FY 2018. The type of OC employee most likely to
have a case presented to the DRB is a GS-13 non-supervisor with 9 years of federal service. OC
employees with cases presented to the DRB
tend to be less experienced than the average
Chart 74: By Organization
employee with a case presented to the DRB,
who is a non-supervisory GS-12 law
enforcement officer with 10 years of federal
service.
There were no supervisory cases presented to
the DRB in FY 2018. CBP-wide, the rate of
supervisory misconduct presented to DRB in
FY 2018 was 15 percent.

Congressional
Affairs

Allegations of misconduct involving
Policy
employees within OC made up less than one
percent of FY 2018 DRB cases compared to
two percent in FY 2017. Chart 74 shows for
which organization within OC each of the two employees with a case presented to DRB in FY
2018 worked.

Chart 75: DRB Proposals
1

1

DRB Proposals/Determinations
DRB issued two determinations to the two OC
employees who had a case presented to DRB in
FY 2018. Both cases received a proposed adverse
action from DRB. Chart 75 shows the total
number of DRB proposal/determination.
The most common misconduct DRB issued
proposals for OC employees in FY 2018 was
AWOL. One of the cases included lack of candor
and failure to follow leave procedures.

Removal

Adverse Suspension

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
66

Chart 76: Decisions

Decisions on DRB Proposals
In FY 2018, deciding officials issued decisions on
three OC DRB cases, regardless of when DRB
panel was convened or in what fiscal year the
proposal was served. For example, a case
presented in FY 2017 could potentially have a
decision issued in FY 2018. The traversing of
fiscal years is attributable to several factors,
which include due process requirements, requests
for extensions, and other case related issues.
Chart 76 shows which organizations within OC
issued decisions in FY 2018.

1

1

1

Policy

Joint Field
Commands

Congressional
Affairs

OC deciding officials entered into settlement
agreements in 67 percent of the DRB cases. The number of settlements is higher than the CBPwide rate of 16 percent of DRB cases ending in settlement agreements. One benefit of settlement
agreements is that the employee waives their right to appeal the matter as part of the agreement.
The cases settled resulted in the deciding officials determining that a non-adverse action was
warranted.
Due to the low number of DRB cases on OC employees, it is not possible to determine a rate of
mitigation on common misconduct for which DRB issued proposals.
Timeliness
In FY 2018 OC deciding officials closed DRB cases in an average of 197 days compared to 155
days in FY 2017. This is higher than the overall average of 151 days for all DRB cases closed in
FY 2018.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
67
APPENDIX – 7
Operations Support DRB Cases
Case Intake
A total of two allegations of misconduct involving
two OS employees were presented to DRB panels
in FY 2018. The type of OS employee most likely
to have a case presented to the DRB is a GS-14
non-supervisor with 26 years of federal service.
OS employees with cases presented to the DRB
tend to be more experienced than the average
employee with a case presented to the DRB, who
is a non-supervisory GS-12 law enforcement
officer with 10 years of federal service.
Allegations of misconduct involving employees
within OS made up less than one percent of FY
2018 DRB cases compared to two percent in FY
2017. Chart 78 shows for which organization
within OS each of the two employees with a case
presented to DRB in FY 2018 worked.

Chart 78: By Organization

Intel

1

Int'l Affairs

1

DRB Proposals/Determinations

Chart 79: DRB Proposals
1

Removal

1

Adverse Suspension

DRB issued two determinations to the two OS
employees who had a case presented to DRB in FY
2018. All of the cases received a proposed adverse
action from DRB. Chart 79 shows the total number
of each type of DRB proposal/determination.
The two proposed adverse actions from OS involved
off-duty arrests. In no particular order, OS
employees were charged with the following types of
misconduct:
Driving under the Influence of Alcohol;
Misuse of Position; and
Failure to Report Outside Employment.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
68
Decisions on DRB Proposals
In FY 2018, LER closed a total of three OS DRB cases, regardless of when DRB panel was
convened or in what fiscal year the proposal was served. For example, a case presented in FY
2017 could potentially have a decision issued in FY 2018. The traversing of fiscal years is
attributable to several factors, which include due process requirements, requests for extensions,
and other case related issues.
Excluding one case where the employee retired
prior to a decision being issued, deciding officials
issued decisions on two OS DRB proposals. Chart
81 shows which organizations within OS issued
decisions in FY 2018.

Chart 81: Decisions

OS deciding officials sustained an adverse action in
50 percent of decisions on DRB proposals. This
number is higher than the CBP-wide rate of 31
percent of decisions on DRB proposals being for an
adverse action. This is likely because OS only
issued decisions on two cases.
Chart 82 shows the breakdown of types of disciplinary actions decided across all organizations
within OS.

Chart 82: Types of Decisions

Due to the low number of DRB cases on OS
employees, it is not possible to determine a rate of
mitigation on common misconduct for which DRB
issued proposals.
Timeliness

50%

50%

In FY 2018 OS deciding officials closed DRB
cases in an average of 154 days compared to 149
days in FY 2017. This is in line with the overall
average of 151 days for all DRB cases closed in
FY 2018.
Adverse

Non-adverse

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY