Published: November 29 , 2007

Conflicting testimony heard Wednesday in whistle blower's case

Bill Robinson
Register News Writer

LEXINGTON -- For his first two years of work at the Blue Grass Army Depot's chemical activity, Donald Van Winkle's supervisor gave his work the highest possible rating, both as an individual and a team member.

His work during 2003 and 2004 as a hazardous materials handler and ammunition inspector was rated a 1, the top score on a scale of 1 to 5.

The following year, however, after Van Winkle was promoted to a job monitoring the air inside chemical weapons storage igloos, it was a different story.

His job performance rating dropped to a 3.

That also was after he had raised concerns about the effectiveness of tests for nerve agent leaks and questioned the qualifications of Bonnie McCoy, the depot chemist who had authorized the ineffective testing, and Susan Epperstein, the quality assurance officer who accepted it.

Van Winkle is seeking compensation from the Army under legislation designed to protect federal workers who report unsafe or unlawful activity. An administrative law judge with the U.S. Department of Labor will conclude three days of testimony today in Lexington regarding Van Winkle's case.

When asked to characterize Van Winkle’s work at the depot, his former supervisor, Gary Stanfield said, "He was an average employee." Van Winkle reported to Stanfield, when he was a materials handler and also when he was an air monitor.

Van Winkle's attorney, Paula Dinerstein of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, then read the performance reviews that Stanfield had written for Van Winkle for each of his three years at the depot.

The evaluations for the first two years were almost identical. Both rated Van Winkle’s technical knowledge as "excellent" and said his work was "always right and on time." He was characterized as dependable, reliable and team supportive. With training, Van Winkle could be promoted to jobs of greater responsibility requiring a higher level of technical skill.

Stanfield was the first depot official Van Winkle informed after he learned in a manufacturer's training session that the configuration of air monitors to detect leaks of nerve agent in weapons storage igloos rendered them ineffective.

Stanfield said he reported the issue to his supervisor, Tom Bilyeu, who referred him to McCoy and Epperson. Stanfield said both assured him correct procedure was being followed.

Jimmy Bowling, president of the union local that represents depot workers, testified that he insisted the depot stop sending workers into the igloos until Van Winkle's concerns were investigated.

Depot managers were reluctant to comply, Bowling said, until he threatened to inform "the newspapersS" of the safety issue.

Employees in the chemical area are encouraged to express safety concerns, he said, but such concerns rarely have been raised, according to Bowling, who has headed the union local for more than 20 years. s"Management is not to happy with it," when safety concerns are raised, he said

Bowling also testified that McCoy accepted responsibility for directing placement of filter pads in VX nerve agent monitoring systems that rendered their tests ineffective.

While McCoy claimed to have direction for the procedure from higher in the chain of command, she was unable to produce documentation for it, he said.

Carol Hunter, who was one of three other depot employees who attended the manufacturer's training with Van Winkle, said that Stanfield, also her supervisor, "listened whenever she had a concern."

However, she heard other employees speculate that Van Winkle might get into trouble for "bucking the system." Some workers believed that, "Bucking the system might get you fired," she said.

Stanfield denied that management's attitude toward Van Winkle had changed because he had raise the safety concern, but said he had "no idea" why McCoy assigned Van Winkle a mobile laboratory for his air monitoring work that had bird nets and other organic debris in its engine compartment.

Stanfield said he advised Van Winkle to document a maintenance check of the vehicle before using it. Van Winkle “would be responsible if the vehicle caught fire,” Stanfield said.

Van Winkle was commended in front of his peers by Lt. Col. George Suplinkov for reporting the incorrect procedure, Hunter said in her testimony.

During an 2005 investigation of Van Winkle that led to his loss of certification to work in the depot's chemical area, Stanfield described Van Winkle "as not a team player."

Asked why his assessment had changed, Stanfield said he heard Van Winkle say he "would like to have the U.S. government pay for his farm. It seemed like he wanted something" for discovering the incorrect monitoring procedure. "I lost respect for him after that," Stanfield said.

Van Winkle denied making such a statement.

Dinerstein said Van Winkle was given a copy of the investigation’s results only after his attorneys began legal proceedings.

After losing his certification to work in the chemical activity, Van Winkle was assigned a job calibrating the air monitors. In the new job, he no longer earned a hazardous duty pay supplement and he was allowed to work only one hour of overtime for several months, Dinerstein said.

After he was reassigned, Van Winkle said he observed co-workers taking "short cuts" in the maintenance of their air monitors. He also asked that drinking water at the depot be tested because it appeared discolored.

In early 2006, Van Winkle fell from a height of 10 to 12 feet while working on his home and fractured a vertebra, he testified.

While on medical leave, Van Winkle said his union steward informed him that depot management recommended that he apply for medical disability. If he returned to work and no jobs he was able to perform were available, Van Winkle said he feared being dismissed.

While still on leave and believing he would not return to the depot, Van Winkle said he filed to run for election as an independent to the state Senate seat held by Ed Worley, D-Richmond.

Then he received a call from a government attorney advising him that his candidacy violated the Hatch Act, which limits the political activity of federal employees.

“I was told I could either resign from my job or drop out of the election, and I would be prosecuted,” Van Winkle. He chose to resign from the depot with the understanding that his disability claim would remain in effect. He won less than 1,000 votes in the election.

His disability payments amount to about 40 percent of the pay he received when working full time at the depot, Van Winkle said.

Depot attorney Kevin Bennett read Van Winkle the report of an interview he gave to the Richmond Register after his whistle blower claim became public.

Van Winkle said he did not recall telling the Register reporter that he was seeking "nothing for himself? with his claim. He is seeking damages for alleged retaliation, loss of income and the mental anguish he has suffered.

Bill Robinson can be reached at brobinson@richmondregister.com or at 623-1669, Ext. 267.