Search:

Custom Search
Photo of Susan Smith

Criminal Investigator Helping Mom Become US Citizen Stays Fired

By Susan Smith

Thursday, May 14, 2009

You can have daily headlines from FedSmith.com delivered right to your desktop each business morning. The service is free and you don't get junk e-mail as the price of your subscription. Just visit our newsletter page to sign up!

Susan McGuire Smith spent most of her 26-year federal government career with NASA, first at NASA Headquarters Office of General Counsel and then at Marshall Space Flight Center, serving as Chief Counsel there for more than 14 years. Her expertise is in government contracts, ethics, and personnel law. Ms. Smith has a J.D and a B.A. degree from the George Washington University. Her publications include Practical Ethics for the Federal Employee.
A Criminal Investigator with the Department of Homeland Security, fired for misconduct in connection with helping her mother try to win U.S. citizenship, has lost her appeal before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. (Hernandez v. Department of Homeland Security, C.A.F.C. No. 2009-3038 (nonprecedential), 5/8/2009)  The facts are taken from the court's decision.
 
The agency slapped Hernandez with four charges, only three of which were sustained before the Merit Systems Protection Board—making false statements to assist her mother's application for citizenship; making false statements during an official investigation; and misusing government equipment. (Opinion p. 2)
 
With regard to the first sustained  charge, Hernandez filed an affidavit stating that her mother had lived with her the previous ten years. However, five years earlier when completing her Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP), Hernandez had reported that her mother lived in Mexico. In her defense, Hernandez argued that her mother used her Mexico address as a permanent one even though she had been living with Hernandez during some of the same time period. (p. 2)
 
As to the second sustained charge, Hernandez gave contradictory facts to the agency regarding her former husband. She signed court documents in connection with an adoption stating that she was still married to him even though they had been divorced some 7 years earlier.
 
She later signed another affidavit stating that they had never represented themselves to be married following their divorce. There were also discrepancies in information she provided at different times concerning child support payments. Hernandez explained the contradictory affidavits by explaining that she had not read the supporting information provided with the more recent affidavit. (p. 2)
 
The third sustained charge involved Hernandez's personal use of the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS), in direct violation of agency rules. Hernandez claimed that she did not know it was prohibited to search her own name and home address on the system. However, the agency was able to show she had been given formal training and certification on the system that included specific instructions never to use it for personal searches. (p. 3)
 
The Merit Systems Protection Board upheld the three charges and sustained Hernandez's removal. It did not buy her explanation on her mother's residency since Hernandez had purposely left out the fact that her mother lived for a time with relatives in Mexico. The Board also did not find credible the idea that a trained criminal investigator who had gone to law school would not read documents supporting an affidavit before she signed it. Finally, the Board found that Hernandez knew or should have known that she was prohibited from putting her personal information into the TECS systems. (pp. 3-4)
 
The court decision now affirms the Board's decision. The court agrees with the MSPB's conclusion that there was substantial evidence backing the agency's case against Hernandez. And the court, like the Board, refused to overturn the removal penalty. As the court explains, "A very high standard of honesty and credibility is expected of law enforcement officers because of the public trust and confidence attendant to their job responsibilities." (p. 4) The appeals court also pointed to Hernandez's refusal to admit to wrongdoing and her lack of regret for her actions as properly factoring into the removal penalty. (p. 5)
 

Bottom line: Hernandez remains out in the cold unless she can convince the U.S. Supreme Court to take another look at her case. 

© 2009 FedSmith Inc. All rights reserved. This article may not be reproduced without express written consent of FedSmith Inc.

Add a Comment about this Article

** All fields are required.
Note: Your comments will not show up right away. FedSmith.com selects the most insightful comments from our readers for posting. If selected, your comments will show up in the comments section after they have been reviewed and approved. See our terms of use for more information.

Readers' Comments

  • Sounds like somebody had something personal against Hernandez - retaliation possibly. Most of the things she is accused of seem fairly minor to me compared to what our congressmen, senators, presidents, and other politicians do. And anyone that knows law enforcement personnel at the state, county, f...
    Posted: July 28, 2009 9:40 AM
  • Machine fixer, this is an interesting account. Why would there be a requirement that these employees be fluent in Spanish? Are you sure that's required, or is it the fact that they may happen to be Spanish-speaking? Are there not veterans included among them? Where does this 47% figure come from? An...
    Posted: May 28, 2009 6:26 PM
  • Maybe what Diversity Manager was looking at was the fact that in order to get a worker's job (ie housekeeping, cafeteria, stock room) with the VA in Tampa, you must be either fluent in some dialect of Spanish. If all one sees are just people of spanish decent working there and almost none of them ...
    Posted: May 27, 2009 2:38 PM

View All Comments »

MORE BY SUSAN SMITH

Contact Susan Smith or read more articles on the author's page.