Published: November 30 , 2007

Former commander offers different view of 'whistle blower'

Bill Robinson
Register News Writer

LEXINGTON -- Is Donald Van Winkle a courageous individual taking on the military bureaucracy to ensure safe handling of chemical weapons at the Blue Grass Army Depot or is he a disgruntled worker, angry about being passed over for a promotion?

According to Lt. Col. George Shuplinkov, former commander of the Blue Grass Army Depot's chemical activity, Van Winkle is more the former than the latter.

Shuplinkov, now an officer with the Army's Chemical Command's headquarters, returned to Kentucky this week to counter the testimony of of Van Winkle.

Van Winkle is seeking compensation under legislation designed to protect federal employees who go public with information about illegal or unsafe government action.

Shuplinkov said Van Winkle often took advantage of the commander's open-door policy, but the former nerve agent monitor usually wanted to talk about failing to receive a promotion. "He never came to talk about the proper location of filters in the depot's system to detect leaks of VX nerve agent in weapons storage igloos."

Van Winkle, who attended a manufacturer's training seminar with three other workers, said they were told the configuration then in use by the depot was useless. Shuplinkov said the manufacturer's recommended setup might be the "optimal" arrangement, but a format the depot eventually abandoned was safe.

After a quality assurance team from the chemical command spent a week studying the issue at the depot, the new configuration was made standard operating procedure.

Shuplinkov said he thought the issue had been settled, and was surprised when news of Van Winkle's filing for whistle blower protection was published in Kentucky newspapers several months later.

In the intervening time, Van Winkle’s certification to work in the depot's restricted chemical area was removed temporarily by his second line supervisor, Tom Bilyeu, according to testimony of depot manager and union officlas.

During the testimony of Depot Union Steward Denver Begley and others, it was revealed that Bilyeu learned of an unfavorable comment that Van Winkle had made about him during the investigation after another employee filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Shuplinkov said he liked Van Winkle and considered him a valuable employee. The commander ordered another manager to investigate whether Van Winkle's chemical area certification should be removed permanently.

When it appeared Van Winkle would be permanently disqualified from working in the chemical area, Shuplinkov said he attempted to effect a reconciliation between Van Winkle and Bilyeu. At a meeting with Bilyeu, depot managers and a union representative, Van Winkle jumped up and turned "beet red," Shuplinkov said.

"I didn't trust (Bilyeu) before and I don't trust him now," the former commander recalled Van Winkle as saying.

Before leaving the depot for his new assignment, Shuplinkov said he laid the groundwork for Van Winkle's chemical area certification to be restored, something never done previously. However, Van Winkle's accident kept that from happening.

Begley, Van Winkle's friend of about 10 years, offered a different characterization of him. "Mr. Van Winkle is a driven individual with a lot of integrity," Begley said. "He can get visibly upset, but he keeps himself under control."

The union steward said he once filed a grievance on Van Winkle's behalf because he was not receiving overtime assignments after being removed from the chemical area.

Begley said he was not acting on behalf of depot management when he recommended that Van Winkle apply for medical disability after he fell doing work on his home and broke two vertebrae.

When Van Winkle recovered enough to return to the depot and was assigned light-duty assignments, Begley reminded him that, "Management is not going to keep you on light duty forever." Employees removed from working in the chemical area usually did not remain at the depot, Begley said. "If no regular job could be found for Mr. Van Winkle, he could very well have been released," the union steward said.

"Mr. Van Winkle has a wife and a big family, and I thought disability might be the best way for him to be assured of a monthly paycheck," he said.

Thomas F. Phelan, an administrative law judge with the U.S. Department of Labor heard testimony in Van Winkle's case Tuesday through Thursday at the University of Kentucky Law School. The hearing was not completed Thursday has expected, so Phelan scheduled another day of testimony for Tuesday.

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