Chapter 05 Table of Contents
Section A: Classification Status Questions (Q1–Q10)
Document: Permanent disability determination issued by Octagon Risk Services (UC’s contracted workers’ compensation administrator), Workers’ Compensation Claim No. 199650445, Date of Injury February 16, 1996. Based on the report of Dr. Steven Silbart dated December 27, 1999. Harold found permanent and stationary July 21, 1997. Permanent disability rating: 6¾%. Weekly compensation rate: $140.00 on earnings of $672.00/week. The determination states: “UC will continue to pay all medical bills.” This determination has never been revoked, modified, or superseded.
(a) Based on this document, what is Harold’s classification?
(b) Has the Octagon permanent disability determination ever been revoked, modified, or superseded by a WCAB order, QME finding, or other legal proceeding? If so, produce the document. If not, please state that for the record.
EX 16 2001-08-08 UCLA Octagon letter.pdfDocument: Email from Captain Jeff Chobanian (Badge #307), UCLA Police Department, sent to all UCLA PD retirees. Subject: “UCLA Police Department Active Retiree List.” Chobanian stated he was “updating our roster of active retirees.” Harold was included on this distribution list as an active retiree.
(a) Based on this document, what is Harold’s classification?
(b) If Harold’s status was “medically separated” as Chobanian stated four days later, why was Harold included on the “active retiree” list?
EX 17 2023-08-01 Chobanian Active Retiree List.pdfDocument: Email from Captain Jeff Chobanian to Harold in response to Harold’s inquiry about his CCW eligibility. Chobanian stated: “I will need to do some more research. I will get back to you.” This confirms Chobanian was actively investigating Harold’s file before issuing the CCW denial three days later.
(a) What research did Captain Chobanian conduct between August 22 and August 25, 2023?
(b) What records did he consult? Please identify each document by name and custodial location.
EX 18 2023-08-22 EMAIL HAROLD TO CHOBANIAN.pdfDocument: Email from Captain Jeff Chobanian to Harold. Chobanian stated: “After a comprehensive review of your file, I have determined you are ineligible for a CCW. Your status was designated as medically separated on March 1, 1996.”
(a) Based on this document, what is Harold’s classification?
(b) What “file” did Chobanian review? Please identify the file by name, custodial location, and current status.
(c) How does “medically separated” reconcile with the Octagon permanent disability determination (Q1), the active retiree list (Q2), and UC’s own 1099-R filings classifying Harold as a disability recipient from 2010–2014 and a retiree from 2016–2025 (Q11–Q13)?
EX 19 2023-08-25 EMAIL CCW CHOBANIAN TO HAROLD.pdfDocument: Email from Captain Jeff Chobanian to Harold. Chobanian stated: “I reviewed your ‘file’ and cross-referenced the records, including your date of separation, classification, status, and our internal records.” Chobanian also stated: “I do not know what you are referring to regarding the other matters you mentioned with IOD, Chief Ross, your personnel file, etc.”
(a) Produce the “internal records” containing Harold’s date of separation, classification, and status that Chobanian referenced.
(b) How does Chobanian’s stated lack of knowledge about Harold’s IOD/workers’ compensation history reconcile with his use of that same history to classify Harold as “medically separated”?
EX 20 2026-02-09 Harold to Chobanian CCW Denial Response FINAL.pdf (Harold’s 11-page response referencing the February 10, 2026 Chobanian reply)Document: UC-issued Concealed Carry Weapons identification card issued by Chief Clarence R. Chapman. The card states “RETIRED” in a gold banner. Authorizes firearms pursuant to section 12027a of the California Penal Code.
Based on this UC-issued document, what was Harold’s classification on September 6, 2002?
EX 21 2002-09-06 CCW ISSUED.pdfDocument: UC-issued CCW identification card. States: “Retired in good standing from service as a Peace Officer of the state of California.” Issued pursuant to California Penal Code §§ 25455, 25460, 25465. This card was issued eleven months AFTER the Regents of the University of California discontinued CCW issuance to DDI recipients following the decision in Alberts v. Regents (September 24, 2012).
(a) Based on this UC-issued document, what was Harold’s classification on August 29, 2013?
(b) If the post-Alberts policy prohibited this issuance to DDI recipients, why was the card issued to Harold eleven months after that policy took effect?
EX 22 2013-08-29 UCLA PD CCW Issued.pdfDocument: Administrative Review Determination issued by RASC Benefits Analyst III Beverly Jeanine Williams-Cook. The determination treated Harold as a regular retiree subject to Via Benefits transfer. The letter referenced a “need to transition” from UC High Option to Via Benefits without identifying any specific policy, regulation, or plan provision creating that need. The determination used the superseded UBEN 100 form (revision R10/21) while the current UBEN 100 form (revision R1/26) had been published by UC Human Resources in January 2026. The letter contained an incomplete phone number (800-888-826 instead of 800-888-8267, missing the final digit).
(a) Based on this document, what is Harold’s classification?
(b) How does RASC’s classification of Harold as a regular retiree reconcile with Captain Chobanian’s classification of Harold as “medically separated” (Q4, Q5)?
(c) Cite the specific policy, regulation, or plan provision creating the “need to transition.”
EX 23 2026-02-27 Williams-Cook Denial Feb27 2026.pdfDocument: Letter from Erin Morse, Benefits/Insurance Supervisor, RASC, acknowledging Harold’s complaint and indicating that Harold needs to “transition” from UC High Option to Via Benefits.
(a) Based on this document, what is Harold’s classification?
(b) How does this classification reconcile with all other classifications documented in Questions 1 through 8?
EX 24 2026-04-09 ERIN MORSE RASC 90 DAY REVIEW.pdfDocument: UCLA’s own institutional publication, “History of Racism and the Quest for Racial Justice at UCLA,” published by the UCLA Luskin Center for History and Policy in March 2022. Pages 35–36 document Harold’s whistleblowing by name, creating constructive institutional notice that UCLA has acknowledged the events underlying this case in its own academic publications.
(a) Does the Plan Administrator acknowledge that Harold is a documented whistleblower per UCLA’s own institutional publications?
(b) Has the Plan Administrator considered whether the pattern documented in this letter constitutes retaliation under California Labor Code § 1102.5 or federal whistleblower statutes?
(c) UCLA’s Luskin Center documents the whistleblowing while the benefits office acts as if these events never occurred. Please state what institutional notice, if any, the Plan Administrator has taken of this publication.
Summary — Seven Contradictory Employee Classifications Issued by UCLA PD
Within a 30-month window between August 21, 2023 and February 24, 2026, sworn members of the UCLA Police Department — Captain Jeff Chobanian (Badge #307), Lieutenant James Echols, Lieutenant Richard L. Davis, and Chief of Police Craig Valenzuela (in his capacity as the final decisionmaker, as Chobanian himself stated in writing on August 22, 2023: “The final decision regarding the issuance of any CCWs rests with the Chief of Police following the existing departmental policy and laws”) — issued and acted upon seven mutually inconsistent classifications of Harold’s employment status, each in writing on UCLA PD letterhead, each from the agency that holds custodial authority over Harold’s sworn-officer personnel file. The complete email thread is reproduced at EX 17a; the originating Active Retiree List mass email is at EX 17. UCLA Compliance and UCLA PD already possess these documents; this table is provided so that the contradictions on the face of UC’s own records are catalogued in a single page.
| # | UCLA PD’s Classification of Harold | UCLA PD’s Own Words (verbatim) | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | “Active retiree” | Mass email of August 21, 2023 at 1:04 PM, Subject “UCLA Police Department Active Retiree List,” sent by Capt. Chobanian to UCLA PD’s active retiree distribution list. Harold was on the distribution list and addressed as an active retiree. | EX 17 |
| 2 | Retiree (CCW-eligible pending qualification) | Chobanian email of August 21, 2023 at 5:14 PM: “Let me check your file and I’ll get back to you. We allow a retiree to qualify at their local agency and send the results to us.” Treated Harold as a CCW-eligible retiree pending qualification check. | EX 17a, p. 4 |
| 3 | Officer with “tenure fewer than ten years” (not LEOSA-qualified) | Chobanian email of August 22, 2023 at 9:53 AM: “Upon reviewing the available records, it has come to my attention that your tenure as an officer with UCLAPD was within a span of fewer than ten years … the issuance of a CCW would not be feasible” under LEOSA, 18 U.S.C. § 926C. Disregarded Harold’s 21.667 years of UCRP service credit and total California POST tenure since 1983. | EX 17a, p. 2 |
| 4 | “Medically separated on March 1, 1996” | Chobanian letter of August 25, 2023 at 10:59 AM: “After a comprehensive review of your file, I have determined you are ineligible for a CCW. Your status was designated as medically separated on March 1, 1996. Consequently, we cannot grant you a CCW per a UCOP mandate.” Directly contradicts the August 21, 2023 “active retiree” designation issued four days earlier by the same officer. | EX 17a, p. 6 |
| 5 | Disputed-status case under Allison Jacobs v. Regents | Same Chobanian letter of August 25, 2023, attaching as “the most recent case that transpired through the court of appeals” the decision in Allison Jacobs v. The Regents of the University of California. By citing Jacobs as controlling, UCLA PD placed Harold within the binary the case adjudicates — Duty Disability Income recipient or retiree — and acknowledged the doctrine that the two are mutually exclusive states under the UCRP. | EX 17a, p. 6 |
| 6 | Officer with an asserted but undisclosed “date of separation, classification, [and] status” | Chobanian email of February 10, 2026 at 6:13 PM: “I reviewed your ‘file’ and cross-referenced the records, including your date of separation, classification, status, and our internal records.” Quotation marks around “file” are Chobanian’s own. Asserts a separation date, a classification, and a status — but refuses to identify any of them, and shuts down further communication 1 hour and 9 minutes after Harold’s formal demand for record reconciliation that same evening. | EX 17a, p. 11 |
| 7 | Retiree whose personnel file has been “archived” | Lt. Echols email of February 24, 2026 at 3:04 PM: “I am currently searching for your file. Because of the period of passed time since your retirement, your file has been archived.” UCLA PD’s own admission, in writing, that Harold IS a retiree of UCLA PD and that the file documenting his classification is in archival storage. Directly contradicts the “medically separated” framing of August 25, 2023. | EX 17a, p. 15 |
| Custody-of-File Statements Following the February 9, 2026 Litigation Hold (EX 20) | |||
| — | File “located,” being sent | Lt. Echols email of February 24, 2026 at 1:24 PM (15 days after Harold served the spoliation/litigation-hold letter on Capt. Chobanian): “Your file has been located and is being sent to me. Once I am in possession of it, I will forward you the information that you requested.” | EX 17a, p. 13 |
| — | File “located,” being sent (repeated 59 minutes later, identical wording) | Lt. Echols email of February 24, 2026 at 2:23 PM: “your file has been located and is being sent to me. Once I am in possession of it, I will forward you the information that you requested.” The verbatim repetition fifty-nine minutes after the first “located” confirmation indicates Lt. Echols believed, on the morning of February 24, 2026, that the file existed and was in transit. | EX 17a, p. 14 |
| — | File reversal — now “archived” and being searched (41 minutes after the prior “located” confirmation) | Lt. Echols email of February 24, 2026 at 3:04 PM: “My apologies. I am in receipt of your request but I am currently searching for your file. Because of the period of passed time since your retirement, your file has been archived. I appreciate your patience while I continue my search.” A file confirmed as “located and being sent” at 2:23 PM became a file that had to be searched for at 3:04 PM — same officer, same file, same hour. (This is also Classification #7 above.) | EX 17a, p. 15 |
| — | “Wrong box” delivered; files may not still exist | Lt. Echols email of April 1, 2026 at 10:10 AM (51 days after the spoliation/litigation-hold letter): “I did receive a box that should have had your files in it, but it was not the correct box. I am now in the process of tracking down the correct box. It has been quite some time since you worked here so locating your files, if they still exist, is a bit challenging.” UCLA PD admits in writing, fifty-one days after a litigation hold was served on the captain who supervised this file, that the agency cannot confirm whether Harold’s personnel file still exists. Acting Chief Karl Ross had previously stated to Harold that the file had been destroyed many years ago. | EX 40 |
The February 9, 2026 Litigation Hold and the Custody Collapse That Followed
On February 9, 2026, Harold served on Capt. Jeff Chobanian (Badge #307) a written response to the August 25, 2023 CCW denial that included, on its face and in unambiguous terms, a formal litigation-hold and preservation demand. The relevant section is reproduced verbatim below from EX 20, page 9:
Spoliation and Data Preservation — February 9, 2026 (EX 20)
“This letter constitutes a formal litigation hold and preservation demand. You, UCLA PD, and the University of California are hereby directed to preserve all documents, records, files, electronically stored information, emails, database entries, payroll records, budget documents, etc. and any other materials relating to Charles A. Harold Jr., including but not limited to the file you stated you reviewed on or before August 25, 2023. Any destruction, alteration, deletion, or failure to preserve such materials after receipt of this notice may result in adverse inference instructions, spoliation sanctions, and independent tort liability under California law. (See Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1, 11–12; Williams v. Russ (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 35, 47–48.)”
Source: Harold to Chobanian — CCW Denial Response FINAL, February 9, 2026, p. 9 (EX 20).
Every custody-of-file statement issued by Lt. Echols in the table above postdates this litigation hold:
- 15 days after the litigation hold — February 24, 2026 at 1:24 PM — Lt. Echols stated the file was “located.”
- 15 days after the litigation hold — February 24, 2026 at 2:23 PM — Lt. Echols repeated, verbatim, that the file was “located.”
- 15 days after the litigation hold — February 24, 2026 at 3:04 PM (forty-one minutes after the prior “located” confirmation) — Lt. Echols reversed and stated the file was “archived” and that he was “currently searching” for it.
- 51 days after the litigation hold — April 1, 2026 at 10:10 AM — Lt. Echols stated the agency had received the wrong box and could no longer confirm whether the file still exists.
Capt. Chobanian was a CC recipient on every February 24, 2026 email. Capt. Chobanian was the named recipient of the February 9, 2026 litigation hold itself. Lt. Davis was a CC recipient on the February 24, 2026 emails and the routing officer who forwarded Harold’s evidentiary package to Lt. Echols on the morning of February 24, 2026. Chief Craig Valenzuela was a CC recipient on Harold’s February 20, 2026 audit-package transmittal that preceded the February 24, 2026 email exchange. The litigation hold was, by the institution’s own email metadata, known throughout UCLA PD’s command chain at the time the four custody-of-file statements were issued.
Under Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court, 18 Cal.4th 1, 11–12 (1998), and Williams v. Russ, 210 Cal.App.4th 35, 47–48 (2012), the trier of fact in any subsequent proceeding may presume that a personnel file the custodian cannot produce, after written notice not to destroy it, would, if produced, support the position of the party against whom the file was lost. Under California Evidence Code § 413, the trier of fact may infer that the missing evidence would be adverse to the party who failed to preserve or produce it. The four Echols statements catalogued above are the documentary record on which both presumptions rest.
The April 1, 2026 “wrong box” statement is not credible on its face. Capt. Chobanian was on the documentary record — in writing, on UCLA PD letterhead — as having reviewed Harold’s personnel file on at least two separate occasions: first on August 25, 2023, when Chobanian wrote “After a comprehensive review of your file, I have determined you are ineligible for a CCW. Your status was designated as medically separated on March 1, 1996” (Classification #4 above); and again on February 10, 2026, when Chobanian wrote “I reviewed your ‘file’ and cross-referenced the records, including your date of separation, classification, status, and our internal records” (Classification #6 above) — one day after Harold served the February 9, 2026 litigation hold (EX 20) on Chobanian himself. Chobanian could not have made either determination — the August 2023 CCW denial or the February 2026 cross-reference — without having the file in his physical or digital possession at the time he wrote each statement.
On March 31, 2026, in the email that Lt. Echols was responding to when he issued the “wrong box” statement of April 1, 2026 (EX 40, p. 1), Harold expressly directed Lt. Echols to ask Capt. Chobanian where the file was. The relevant passage from Harold’s March 31, 2026 email reads, verbatim: “Captain Chobanian was copied on all three emails. Captain Chobanian had previously confirmed reviewing this same file on August 25, 2023, and again on February 10, 2026 so I am curious, where is it now?” Lt. Echols’s April 1, 2026 reply does not answer that question. It does not state that he asked Capt. Chobanian. It does not state what Capt. Chobanian said. It instead introduces a new account in which the file may not exist at all — an account that cannot be reconciled with Capt. Chobanian’s own two prior written statements that he had reviewed the file.
UCLA PD’s position, taken as a whole, is therefore the following: (1) Capt. Chobanian had the file in August 2023 and used it to medically separate Harold; (2) Capt. Chobanian had the file in February 2026 (one day after the litigation hold was served on him) and used it to confirm Harold’s “date of separation, classification, [and] status”; (3) fifteen days later Lt. Echols, copying Capt. Chobanian on each message, said the file was “located” (twice), then “archived,” in a single afternoon; (4) fifty-one days after the litigation hold, Lt. Echols stated the agency had received the wrong box and the file may not exist. These four positions cannot all be true on the same set of facts. Either Capt. Chobanian had the file in 2023 and 2026 (in which case the file exists and Lt. Echols’s April 1, 2026 statement is wrong), or Capt. Chobanian did not have the file in 2023 and 2026 (in which case Classifications #4 and #6 above were issued without the documentary basis Chobanian himself claimed). Both positions cannot be sustained simultaneously.
UCLA PD has therefore placed itself, in writing, in the position of having admitted — through Lt. Echols, the custodian of the file Capt. Chobanian quoted from to issue Classification #4 (the “medically separated on March 1, 1996” designation) — that the foundational document supporting Classification #4 may no longer exist, after the institution received a litigation hold expressly forbidding its destruction. The classification stands. The file does not. The captain who issued the classification, the captain who twice wrote that he had reviewed the file, and the captain who was copied on every custodial statement that followed, has not explained the contradiction.
Sworn California Peace Officers, Protected Personnel Records, False Written Statements After Litigation Hold
The custody-of-file statements catalogued in the table above were issued by sworn California peace officers acting under color of authority, in writing, on UCLA PD letterhead, after Harold had served a written litigation hold (EX 20) on Capt. Chobanian on February 9, 2026. The file at issue is Harold’s peace-officer personnel file — a category of record protected under California Penal Code § 832.7 and the Pitchess-discovery framework. Capt. Chobanian was on the documentary record as having reviewed that file twice (August 25, 2023 and February 10, 2026). Lt. Echols, copying Capt. Chobanian on each communication, then issued four mutually inconsistent statements about whether the same file was located, archived, mis-shipped, or no longer in existence. UCLA PD’s position cannot be sustained simultaneously on the institution’s own record. At least one of the statements cannot be reconciled with the documentary record.
Where peace officers, acting in their official capacity, issue written statements that cannot be reconciled with their own prior written statements regarding a protected personnel file subject to a known preservation demand, the conduct triggers, at minimum, the following authorities:
- California Penal Code § 118.1 — A peace officer who files any report relating to the commission of a criminal offense or a peace officer’s investigatory function knowing the report to be false, in any material respect, is guilty of a misdemeanor (or, where the report concerns alleged criminal conduct of another, a felony). The custody-of-file statements relate directly to a personnel file Harold had identified as the predicate for a Cal. Labor Code § 132(a) crime report filed February 19, 2026.
- California Penal Code § 135 — Willful destruction, alteration, or concealment of any document subject to legal process, with knowledge that the record is about to be produced in a trial, inquiry, or investigation authorized by law and intent to prevent its production. The February 9, 2026 litigation hold and the February 19, 2026 Cal. Lab. Code § 132(a) crime report supplied that knowledge.
- California Penal Code § 135.5 — Destruction or concealment of physical evidence relating to a public investigation. The Cal. Labor Code § 132(a) report and the parallel POST complaints (PUBLIC-26-000212, -000213, -000214) are public investigations.
- California Government Code § 1222 — Every wilful omission to perform any duty enjoined by law upon any public officer is punishable as a misdemeanor. The duty to preserve evidence after written notice not to destroy it is such a duty.
- California Penal Code § 832.7 — The peace-officer personnel file at issue is itself a statutorily protected record. Sworn personnel issuing materially false written statements about the custodial status of such a file is misconduct on its face.
- California Penal Code § 13510.9 (SB 2) — Mandatory POST reporting of allegations of serious misconduct by peace officers, including dishonesty in the reporting or investigation of misconduct.
- UC Whistleblower Policy 1100171 — UC personnel are required to report suspected improper governmental activities. False statements by sworn UC personnel regarding the custody of a protected personnel file fall squarely within the policy’s definition of an improper governmental activity (the same authority cited in the Preface, Section I, of this audit demand).
UCLA Compliance, the agency that closed CMP373 on April 17, 2026 without interviewing the complainant and on a record curated by UCLA PD, is hereby placed on notice that the custody-of-file statements catalogued above are not a clerical inconvenience. They are written statements by sworn peace officers about a protected personnel file, made after a documented litigation hold, that cannot be reconciled with the same officers’ own prior written statements that they had reviewed the file. The conduct fits, on its face, the authorities listed above. UCLA Compliance’s “matter closed” determination is incompatible with the statutory framework that governs the same conduct.
Legal Significance — Chain of Custody, Admissibility, and Spoliation
The seven classifications above were issued in writing by sworn California peace officers — UCLA Police Department personnel, including Capt. Jeff Chobanian (Badge #307), Lt. James Echols, Lt. Richard L. Davis, and Chief of Police Craig Valenzuela in his capacity as the final decisionmaker on these matters — speaking as state actors with custodial authority over Harold’s UCLA PD personnel file. The legal weight of those statements, in any forum that adjudicates Harold’s classification, is governed by California’s evidentiary framework:
• California Evidence Code § 1280 (Public Employee Records Exception). Records made by a public employee within the scope of duty are admissible to prove the act or condition stated. Capt. Chobanian’s August 25, 2023 letter, his February 10, 2026 email, and Lt. Echols’s February 24, 2026 email were issued on UCLA PD letterhead by sworn personnel acting in the scope of their administrative duties. They are admissible as substantive evidence of UCLA PD’s official position on Harold’s status — against the agency that issued them.
• California Evidence Code § 1271 (Business Records Exception). UCLA PD’s internal personnel file — the source Capt. Chobanian and Lt. Echols expressly cited — is itself admissible business-record evidence. Chobanian’s direct quotation from that file (the “medically separated on March 1, 1996” designation, classification #4 above) carries the file’s own evidentiary weight as a matter of law.
• California Evidence Code § 413 (Failure to Produce Evidence). UCLA PD’s documented inability to locate Harold’s archived personnel file (Lt. Echols, February 24, 2026, 3:04 PM, classification #7 above) permits the trier of fact to draw the inference that the missing file would, if produced, support Harold’s position rather than UC’s.
• Spoliation doctrine. Under Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1, and its progeny, where a party with custodial duty over evidence loses, destroys, or fails to produce that evidence, the trier of fact may presume the lost evidence was unfavorable to the custodian. UCLA PD, as the custodial agency for Harold’s sworn-officer personnel file, bears that risk of presumption on every classification question now in dispute.
In any forum that adjudicates Harold’s classification — the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, an administrative review, or a court of competent jurisdiction — Capt. Chobanian’s and Lt. Echols’s emails are not opinion, hearsay, or one party’s side of the story. They are the official position of UCLA PD, admissible on UC’s own records, against UC.
The One Classification That Controls the Other Six
Of the seven classifications UCLA PD has issued Harold in 30 months, one controls them all. On August 25, 2023, Capt. Jeff Chobanian (Badge #307), a sworn California peace officer acting as a state actor with custodial authority over Harold’s UCLA PD personnel file, stated in writing on UCLA PD letterhead: “Your status was designated as medically separated on March 1, 1996.” That single sentence, issued by the agency with the most authoritative records UC possesses on this question, resolves the binary presented in CH-04 by force of UC’s own controlling case law.
Under Jacobs v. Regents of the University of California (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 17 — the very case Capt. Chobanian himself attached to his denial letter as “the most recent case that transpired through the court of appeals” and identified as the controlling authority on Harold’s status — and its predecessor Alberts v. Regents (Alameda Super. Ct., September 24, 2012) [unpublished], the legal term that describes Harold is fixed: he is a Duty Disability Income recipient who, in the words of UC’s own Gold Book Policy 1700.1(b)(1) (August 18, 2020), “has not retired or separated from the University of California.” Jacobs holds expressly that “the UCRP contains no disability retirement” and that DDI recipients “are not retired under the UCRP.” The two states — DDI recipient and retiree — are mutually exclusive under UCRP and under the controlling case law.
UCLA PD, by the hand of its own captain, citing the very case that controls the question, classified Harold as medically separated due to industrial injury — which under Jacobs and the Gold Book is the precise factual predicate for the legal classification “Duty Disability Income recipient.” The agency with custodial authority over the underlying personnel record has therefore confirmed Harold’s UCRP status, by name, on UCLA PD letterhead, in writing, citing the same case law that binds UC.
Every contradictory classification UC has issued since — RASC’s 2015 reclassification of Harold to “regular service retirement” without WCAB approval (CH-04); the 2015 dual-coded IRS Form 1099-R (Code 2 and Code 3 in the same tax year, CH-06); the 2016–2024 Code 2 and Code 7 distributions (CH-06); the $727.48-per-month premium deductions taken from a DDI recipient whose medical coverage is employer-paid under the workers’ compensation settlement (CH-04, CH-12); the Williams-Cook “non-compliance with retiree health policy” determination of February 27, 2026 (CH-12); and the April 1, 2026 Anthem termination (CH-12) — collides head-on with Capt. Chobanian’s own statement, with Jacobs, and with UC’s own Gold Book policy that binds the institution.
UC cannot, on a single set of facts, treat Harold as both medically separated (UCLA PD’s position, classification #4 above) and retired (RASC’s position) when its own controlling case law and its own published policy expressly forbid the hybrid. One office is right and the other is wrong; under Jacobs, the office that is right is the one whose classification matches the underlying factual record — and on that record, UCLA PD’s “medically separated” finding is the one supported by the August 8, 2001 Octagon permanent-and-stationary determination, the WCAB-approved settlement in Claim No. 199650445, the WCAB’s exclusive jurisdiction under California Labor Code §§ 5803–5804, and the federal tax treatment Harold actually received from 2010 through 2014 (Code 3, Disability, 92.7% tax-free).
The name UC’s own case law gives Harold is therefore not “retiree.” It is Duty Disability Income recipient — and that classification was confirmed on UCLA PD letterhead, by Capt. Chobanian himself, on August 25, 2023, citing the very appellate decision that bound UC then and binds UC now.
The seven classifications catalogued in this chapter are limited to those issued by UCLA Police Department personnel. UCRAYS, the UC Retirement Administration Service Center (RASC), UC’s Office of the President Health & Welfare Administration, and UC’s federal tax filings have produced an additional series of contradictory classifications of Harold’s status. Those classifications are documented at length in Chapter 04 (the 2015 conversion), Chapter 06 (the 1099-R coding contradictions), Chapter 07 (records integrity and the data-breach pattern), and Chapter 12 (the 2026 coverage termination). They are not re-litigated here so that the UCLA PD-specific contradictions catalogued above remain undiluted.
Chapter Exhibits
The following exhibits are referenced in this chapter.
| Ex. | Document Description | Date |
|---|---|---|
| EX 16 | Octagon Risk Services Permanent & Stationary Determination — Claim No. 199650445 | August 8, 2001 |
| EX 17 | Chobanian — UCLA Police Department Active Retiree List (mass email to active retirees, Harold included on distribution) | August 21, 2023 |
| EX 17a | UCLA PD Email Thread — combined PDF of four emails documenting the seven contradictory classifications: Aug 21–25, 2023 Chobanian CCW thread (pp. 1–5); Aug 25, 2023 Chobanian CCW Denial Letter citing Jacobs (pp. 6–10); Feb 10, 2026 Chobanian termination of communication (pp. 11–12); Feb 24, 2026 Lt. Echols “file archived” (pp. 13–15) | Aug 21, 2023 – Feb 24, 2026 |
| EX 18 | Email Harold to Chobanian | August 22, 2023 |
| EX 19 | Email CCW Chobanian to Harold | August 25, 2023 |
| EX 20 | Harold to Chobanian — CCW Denial Response FINAL | February 9, 2026 |
| EX 21 | UCLA PD CCW Issued — Chief Clarance Chapman | September 6, 2002 |
| EX 22 | UCLA PD CCW Issued — Chief James D. Herren | August 29, 2013 |
| EX 23 | Williams-Cook Denial Letter (UC RASC Administrative Review Determination) | February 27, 2026 |
| EX 24 | Erin Morse RASC 90-Day Review | April 9, 2026 |
Documents referenced herein that were created by UC, issued by UC, filed by UC, retained by UC, or filed with the IRS under penalty of perjury, or generated by UC’s own contracted insurer, are UC’s own institutional record. Documents created by the undersigned were created in direct response to UC’s own records and communications. Where UC’s own institutional records are not produced to clarify this audit, the author will rely on California Evidence Code § 413, under which the failure to produce evidence within a party’s control permits the inference that such evidence would be adverse to the party withholding it.
Submitted for Regulatory Review and Public Accountability
Charles A. Harold Jr.
UCLA Police Department (Retired?), Badge #341
Founder and First President, Federated University Police Officers’ Association (FUPOA)
I affirm that the information contained in this document and its exhibits is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and good faith belief, submitted under the protections of 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h) (False Claims Act anti-retaliation) and California Labor Code § 1102.5.