VA Accountability Bill: Resigning Won't Stop Investigations, Permanent File Notations Proposed

A new piece of legislation, the "Personnel Integrity in Veterans Affairs Act of 2025," is on the table, and it’s looking to change how personnel issues are handled at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The core idea is to ensure that if a VA employee is under investigation, that process doesn't just disappear if they decide to quit. It also adds a layer of transparency for VA political appointees.

Resign & Run? Not So Fast: The New Investigation Rules

Here’s the main thrust: if a VA employee is facing an "eligible personnel investigation" and resigns before it's wrapped up, this bill says the VA must continue that investigation. If the investigation concludes with an "adverse finding," a permanent note detailing this goes into the employee's official personnel file within 40 days of the investigation's completion. According to Section 3, which would add a new section 729 to Title 38 of the United States Code, the VA Secretary can't halt an investigation just because an employee has left.

So, what happens if there's an adverse finding? The employee isn't left in the dark. The VA has to notify them in writing within 5 days of the investigation's resolution, provide a copy of the finding and supporting documents, and give the employee at least 30 days to submit a written response. After that, a written decision is provided. If an employee disagrees with the outcome, they have appeal rights. They can take their case to the Merit Systems Protection Board (as per section 7701 of title 5, U.S. Code) or a VA Disciplinary Appeals Board (under section 7464 of title 38, U.S. Code). If an appeal is filed, that gets noted in their file within two weeks. If the employee wins the appeal, all notations about the adverse finding are wiped from their record within two weeks of the board's decision. If the VA's decision is upheld, the note about the appeal itself is removed.

Shining a Light: Performance Plans for VA Political Brass

Beyond individual employee investigations, Section 2 of the bill targets VA political appointees. It amends existing law (section 725 of title 38, U.S. Code) to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit the annual performance plans for these appointees to both the Senate and House Committees on Veterans Affairs. This has to happen within 30 days of the plans being completed, aiming to give Congress a clearer view of how the VA's politically appointed leadership is being evaluated.

Who's on the Hook & What Counts as an Investigation?

The bill defines a "covered employee" pretty broadly – it includes anyone in the competitive service, the excepted service, or the Senior Executive Service within the VA.

And what’s an "eligible personnel investigation"? It’s not just any workplace chat. The bill specifies this includes investigations that kick off within 60 days of an employee's departure. It covers probes by an Inspector General, internal VA investigations, or those by other federal bodies like the Office of the Special Counsel or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Crucially, it also includes investigations that could recommend disciplinary actions like those outlined in chapters 43 (performance-based actions) or 75 (adverse actions) of title 5, U.S. Code, or other VA-specific authorities (chapter 74 or section 501 of title 38, U.S. Code).

The Real-World Angle: What This Means for VA Folks & Accountability

This bill is clearly aimed at boosting accountability within the VA. The idea is that employees can't just resign to sidestep the consequences of an investigation. For the VA system, it could mean a more thorough follow-through on misconduct allegations. For taxpayers and veterans, it might offer more assurance that issues are being addressed.

However, for VA employees, particularly those who might be under investigation, the stakes get higher. A permanent negative notation in a personnel file, even if an employee resigned, could significantly impact future job prospects, especially in federal service. While the appeal process offers a way to challenge findings, the initial hurdle of having such a notation made is substantial. The broad definition of "eligible personnel investigation" also means a wide range of inquiries could fall under these new rules. The requirement for political appointee performance plans to go to Congress adds another layer of oversight, making those high-level performance metrics more public.