The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02-10-21 Public Comment - M. Freeman - Hatch ActFrom: michael freeman To: Cyndy Andrus; Agenda Cc: Mason, Cheryl; dat.tran@va.gov; Richard.Hipolit@va.gov; David_Shearman@vetaff.senate.gov; brennen_britton@moran.senate.gov; Towers, Jon; McPike, Richard; info@joebiden.com; denis.mcdonough@gmail.com; Jason.mcclellan@va.gov; Carolyn.clancy@va.gov; lshane@militarytimes.com; Jim Absher; kimberly.osborne@va.gov; kimberly.mcleod@va.gov; Robert.Scharnberger@va.gov; nina.tann@va.gov; Dominic.Cussatt@va.gov; karen.alibrando@va.gov; Dorilyn.Ames@va.gov; marjorie.auer@va.gov; Kathy.Banfield@va.gov; lisa.barnard@va.gov; Glenn.Johnson3@va.gov; matthew.blackwelder@va.gov; david.brenningmeyer@va.gov; Bethany.Buck@va.gov; sonnet.bush@va.gov; angel.caracciolo@va.gov; Theresa.Catino@va.gov; Vincent.Chiappetta@va.gov; vito.clementi@va.gov; Laura.Collins@va.gov; Cherry.Crawford@va.gov; john.crowley@va.gov; Hansel.Cordeiro@va.gov; Lauren.Cryan@va.gov; Evan.Deichert@va.gov; Tiffany.Dawson@va.gov; kristin.haddock2@va.gov; jonathan.hager@va.gov; milo.hawley@va.gov; Stacey.Heneks@va.gov; Michael.Herman@va.gov; linda.howell@va.gov; jennifer.hwa@va.gov; david.mccumber@mtstandard.com; Marti.Hyland@va.gov; Phillip.Christy@va.gov; Amy.Ishizawar@va.gov; anne.jaeger@va.gov; Michelle.Kane@va.gov; susan.kennedy@va.gov; ryan.kessel@va.gov; Michael.Kilcoyne@va.gov; bradley.Knope@va.gov; Kelli.Kordich@va.gov; Jonathan.Kramer@va.gov; simone.krembs@va.gov; nathan.kroes@va.gov; Michael.Lane@va.gov; Michael.Lane2@va.gov; mary.larkin@va.gov; Michael.Pappas@va.gov; dylan_laslovich@tester.senate.gov Subject: Letter to Mayor Andrus Date: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 10:10:23 AM Attachments: Letter to Mayor Andrus.pdf Mayor Andrus, Good morning! I hope you are doing well. Please review the attached letter at your earliest convenience. In addition to attaching it to this email I have also mailed a copy of it to your office via USPS First Class Mail. Please let me know if you have any questions. Very Respectfully, Michael S. Freeman II Disabled Veteran (719) 484-9050 michael.s.freeman2@gmail.com Michael S. Freeman II P.O. Box 16005 Colorado Springs, CO 80935 February 10th, 2021 Bozeman City Hall ATTN: Cyndy Andrus 121 N Rouse Ave, Bozeman, MT 59715 Mayor Andrus, My name is Michael S. Freeman II, and I am a disabled Veteran trying to get in contact with Senator Jon Tester. He is the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs (SVAC). The SVAC is the congressional committee charged with oversight of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). I am trying to get his committee to launch an investigation into a possible violation of the Hatch Act from one of the senior executives within the VA, but his committee has not yet acknowledged my letter to him despite my numerous attempts to contact him. I am certain that any Veterans residing within your city will appreciate an investigation into possible corruption of a VA public official—especially one that is such a prominent figure within the appeals system of the VA. I would be very grateful it if you could forward a copy of the enclosed letter to him and ask him why he is so reluctant to investigate these allegations. Please contact me using the contact information listed at the top of this page if you have any questions for me. Sincerely, Michael S. Freeman II Disabled Veteran Enclosed: Letter to Sen. Jon Tester Dated 2/1/21 Michael S. Freeman II P.O. Box 16005 Colorado Springs, CO 80935 Michael.S.Freeman2@gmail.com February 9th, 2021 Office of U.S. Senator Jon Tester ATTN: Jon Tester 1 E. Main Street, Suite 202 Bozeman, MT 59715 Sen. Tester, Please have your committee conduct an investigation into the allegations posed in this letter. It pertains to an alleged post by Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA) Chairman Cheryl Mason (herein referred to as “Ms. Mason”) that may be in violation of the Hatch Act. It has come to my attention that Ms. Mason is alleged to have made the following post sometime in September of 2020: For reference, the Justice Department furnishes the following general guidance in reference to the Hatch Act: “Since partisan political activity in the workplace is prohibited by the Hatch Act, employees may not use the Internet or any other government equipment to engage in partisan political activities.” Source: https://www.justice.gov/jmd/political-activities I would assume that the aforementioned Facebook post was made while Ms. Mason was off duty, which would ostensibly result in the Hatch Act not applying to this situation--except it seems that Ms. Mason is a complete bozo that has her government email account linked to her Facebook account: Since she does not have a public professional Facebook profile page and she has several non-government email accounts linked to the same account--I am to presume that her government email is linked to the account in question (as opposed to a different account). I am not a lawyer, but I imagine that her government email account is considered to be “government equipment” for purposes of the Hatch Act. I know that Congress and the White House loves Ms. Mason because her corruption saves Congress a lot of money by acting as an intentional bottleneck for Veterans disability claims. But this saved money is built on false pretenses, and it is beyond time to get someone with more ethics to take her place. In addition to reviewing this letter, I am also asking that you review the enclosed letter for details explaining her other massive failures while working at the BVA and why she brings great shame to the position that she currently holds. Please let me know when you receive this letter or if you have any questions. Thank you, Michael S. Freeman II Disabled Veteran Enclosed: List of BVA Chairman Cheryl Mason’s Failures at the BVA LIST OF BVA CHAIRMAN CHERYL MASON’S FAILURES AT THE BVA For a clickable version of this list, please visit www.twitter.com/EndVACorruption and click the link in the pinned tweet. BVA Scandals under Ms. Mason: (a) Alleged Violation of Hatch Act. Under the Hatch Act, Ms. Mason is considered a further-restricted employee, which includes executive service (SES), administrative law judges, and administrative appeal judges. U.S.C. § 7323(b)(2)(A); 5 C.F.R. § 734.401. The laws also states “The Chairman shall be subject to the same ethical and legal limitations and restrictions concerning involvement in political activities as apply to judges of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.” 38 U.S.C. §7101(b)(1). Further-restricted employees may not post the partisan material of a candidate or partisan group. Doing so could result in removal, reduction in grade, debarment from federal employment for a period up to five years, suspension, reprimand, and a civil penalty up to $1,000. See 5 U.S.C. § 7326. I have received credible allegations (with proof) that within the month of September 2020 she posted a Pro-Trump article on her personal Facebook account’s timeline in violation of this act. If this is true, then her objectivity has been compromised and she cannot be trusted to instruct her staff to render fair and impartial judgements on Veterans appeals. Furthermore, if these allegations are true then this alone should justify her immediate resignation or required removal from her current position. Source: Anonymous (b) “’Terrified’ of Retaliation Inside Veterans Affairs Whistleblower Office”. “Creating an internal office to address whistleblower retaliation is unusual, but the VA has a particularly rich history of abuses, many of which have been compounded by a lack of accountability for misconduct. The department has a well-documented history of firing whistleblowers after they speak up about problems, but has a dismal record when it comes to holding people accountable for poor performance or egregious misconduct.” Source: https://www.pogo.org/investigation/2020/03/terrified-of-retaliation-inside-veterans-affairs-whistleblower-office/ While it is worth noting that while the BVA is not specifically cited by this article, there is no reason to believe that the BVA is exempt. The VA would like for us to believe that the BVA is an entirely separate organization, but that could not be further from the truth; the fact remains that the BVA is still part of the VA no matter how much they might try to have us believe otherwise, and VA leadership routinely illegally retaliates against whistleblowers. (c) “***PRESS RELEASE*** Veterans Groups Sue VA For Data on Bias, Sexism”. “The VA has not shown that it has fully eradicated the culture of bias that allowed its VLJs to openly promote hate for years. Its reluctance to provide a remedy for veterans whose claims were handled by bigoted VLJs inspires no confidence that it will take evidence of discrimination seriously.” Source: https://www.protectourdefenders.com/press-release-veterans-groups-sue-va-for-data-on-bias-sexism/ (d) Fraudulent BVA decision declared within Supreme Court Case Docket # 18-1360. “The most egregious continuing violation by the said defendants' is their creating a fraudulent BVA Tribunal decision in May 31, 2018, which had the legal effect of completely foreclosing this veteran's EED appeal, and then publishing it on their official website (VA.gov) 3 this without informing this veteran of same by letter to the rendering of the fraudulent decision, nor the decision itself. Furthermore, the basis for that fraudulent BVA decision was in the VA 3 alleging this veteran had not filed a VA Form-9 to perfect his appeal; this being the 2nd time the VA erroneously stated the VA form 9 was1 untimely June 12, 2015 and2 May 31, 2018 for failure to submit a timely VA Form 1-9 a continuing violation of a 1st amendment constitutional right” Source: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-1360/98014/20190430150253818_00000001.pdf This indicates the high likelihood that there is a great deal of unethical behavior and corruption within the BVA behind their decision- making process. Because of the rampant corruption within this case, the Supreme Court ended up granting a Writ of Certiorari (which is exceedingly rare) for this Veteran. This further reveals the extent of the corruption that exists within the BVA. It points to either direct involvement by senior leadership within the BVA or it points to a severe lack in oversight of this organization. Either way, Ms. Mason should be embarrassed that the Supreme Court had to point out the BVA’s fraud in this case. (e) “The Black Hole of BVA Remands – The Silent Denial.” “It starts with a BVA decision that grants service connection, but fails to make a decision on effective dates or impairment ratings, and THEN fails to remand or refer those issues back to the Regional Office. ... I call these decisions ‘BVA Silent Denials’” Source: https://www.veteranslawblog.org/bva- remands/#:~:text=It%20starts%20with%20a%20BVA,decisions%20%E2%80%9CBVA%20Silent%20Denials%E2%80%9D I have conducted a review of some of Mason’s decisions prior to becoming the Chairman of the BVA and in doing so I gained a much deeper understanding of why she was selected to lead this organization. If she is not denying, dismissing, or remanding Veterans’ appeals, then she is found to be often utilizing the silent denial technique to punt the backpay issue back to the VBA (where they will typically screw the Veteran). With very little effort on my part, I have identified Mason’s use of the Silent Denial in the following BVA Docket numbers: 05-21 686A, Citation # 1229868 04-23 523, Citation # 1340239 09-03 298, Citation # 1303867 03-22 830, Citation # 1313869 10-14 796, Citation # 1334810 06-25 752, Citation # 1454914 13-03 213, Citation # 1327413 13-13 977, Citation # 1327581 11-32 256, Citation # 1325928 11-32 269, Citation # 1325430 To confirm my theory that these are true silent denials, I made a FOIA Request (21-01028-F) to the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) FOIA office and requested effective dates and ratings for the above-mentioned appeals, to which they responded by referring my request to the BVA FOIA office—this confirms my theory, because if effective dates and ratings were made for any of these appeals, they would have had to have been made by the VBA (because they were not determined within the BVA decision themselves). I could have identified many more examples of her using this tactic, but I do not wish to continue searching because this kind of overt abuse which likely resulted in her ascension to her current position and it is very depressing to confirm my suspicion that she is working against Veterans. While I cannot speak on the merits of other appeals that Mason denied, dismissed, or remanded; I can say with relative ease that Mason very frequently utilizes this tactic, which explains why government leadership is so fond of her. In the meantime, she is showing clear bias and undermining the very institution that she is supposed to represent. (f) “Quality review of mass adjudication: a randomized natural experiment at the board of veterans appeals, 2003-16”. “The likely reason for this functional divergence of standards of review was the desire to meet BVA’s performance goal of “accurate” decisions. BVA would regularly report accuracy rates of 93-95% in its Annual Reports (e.g., Board of Veterans’ Appeals, 2014, 2016), which were defined as a key performance measure under the Government Performance and Results Act and scrutinized in congressional oversight hearings (House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 2007, 2008; Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 2005).” Source: https://siepr.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/19-005.pdf While this timeframe is not during Mason’s tenure as Chairman and cannot be relegated to her leadership, it is worth noting that inaccuracy in decisions continued well into her tenure [see next subparagraph]. (g) “Due Process and Mass Adjudication: Crisis and Reform” [10, 11] Another case-study revealed that “In 2018, 4,842 BVA decisions were appealed to CAVC. Only 382 (7%) of these BVA decisions were affirmed. 80 percent were remanded in whole or in part. In the same year, BVA claimed to have maintained a 93.5% accuracy rate.”. The VA routinely touts the broken records quantity of decisions on the part of the BVA and uses this metric to pretend that this organization is doing right by Veterans. Another excerpt from this review states, “Second, we draw upon a rich internal database of over 500,000 decisions by VA judges to evaluate a prototypical initiative of internal administrative law. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA) operated its “Quality Review Program” without formal change for fifteen years. It randomly selected cases for review, creating a unique natural experiment. The dataset, which the agency itself uses to manage its adjudicatory process, has never before been publicly studied. We use this dataset to examine whether the program, which an elite detail of four to six full-time attorneys implemented for over fifteen years, improved decisional quality.22 Through in-depth investigation, we show that the program generated an all-but-meaningless measure of decisional quality. The program failed to identify errors in decisionmaking in any rigorous way, but it did generate an “accuracy rate” the agency used to defend its work.23 Quality Review (QR), in essence, became public relations. Our findings reveal the extent of the crisis threatening the federal administrative state: Even an agency that claims success may in fact be hiding dramatic declines in decisional quality.” Source: https://westdunn.com/va-law/stanford-study-shows-bvas-accuracy-claims-are- misleading#:~:text=In%202018%2C%204%2C842%20BVA%20decisions,maintained%20a%2093.5%25%20accuracy%20rate I find it very hard to believe that this level of dysfunction could be present without significant misconduct and/or negligence on Ms. Mason’s part. (h) Various Critiques/Comments from the Public. While this evidence is not particularly surprising on its own accord, it does solidify the reality behind the failures of the BVA over the last few years. What I have attached to this document is only a small sample from a much larger batch of exposure of the corruption within the VA/BVA. This inclusion serves to supplement the detailed studies that I provided from Stanford and applies a human element to the massive failures of the BVA. BVA Criticism (In no particular order)