---

CHAPTER OVERVIEW

On August 25, 2023, Lieutenant Jeff Chobanian (#307) of the UCLA Police Department’s Administrative Division issued a determination via email that Charles A. Harold Jr. (Badge #341) is ineligible for a Concealed Weapons (CCW) permit, stating that Harold’s “status was designated as medically separated on March 1, 1996” and citing a “UCOP mandate prohibiting the issuance of a concealed weapons permit, identification card or retiree CCW privileges” to officers receiving Duty Disability Income (DDI).

That determination was accompanied by three attachments: UCLA PD Policy 209 (Lexipol, Copyright 2022), the UC Gold Book Policy (GO 21-02, Section 1700.1, created August 18, 2020, finalized December 4, 2020), and the Court of Appeal opinion in Jacobs v. The Regents of the University of California (2017) (Second Appellate District, Case No. B270641).

The factual basis upon which that determination rests contains documented internal contradictions that exist not between Harold’s records and UC’s records, but between UC’s own records across multiple institutional systems. These contradictions extend well beyond the scope of a single departmental file review and involve conflicts between UCLA PD records, UC RASC records, UC tax filings (1099-R), UC benefits enrollment systems, UC workers’ compensation records, and UC’s own published Medicare transition materials.

This chapter documents ten irreconcilable contradictions in UC’s institutional records, each supported by UC’s own documents, tax filings, official correspondence, and published policies.

THE THRESHOLD QUESTION: WHO LOST THE RECORDS?

On August 8, 2001, Octagon Risk Services, Inc., acting as claims administrator for UC Los Angeles, issued a permanent disability determination for Harold’s industrial injury of February 16, 1996. That determination established ongoing Duty Disability Income benefits. Under California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 15400.2, a self-insured employer’s claim files “with awards for future benefits shall not be destroyed.” (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8, §15400.2.) The University of California is a self-insured employer. My disability benefits were ongoing from 2001 through at least 2015. Under California law, UC was legally prohibited from destroying Harold’s claim file.

The following table documents the records retention status of every institutional entity that, under applicable California law, UC policy, or professional obligation, should have maintained records relating to my workers’ compensation claim, settlement agreement, disability classification, and personnel file. I have organized this table using the best available evidence — the records I personally retained for twenty-four years.

ENTITY / CUSTODIAN	RECORDS THAT SHOULD EXIST	LEGAL RETENTION OBLIGATION	STATUS
Bruin Watch (Claimant / Individual)	Octagon permanent disability letter, settlement agreement, all correspondence, tax records (1099-R), CCW permits, Herz emails, Ida Fong records	Personal records — no legal duty to retain. Harold retained voluntarily for 24 years.	RETAINED 24 YEARS (2001–2026)
UCLA Luskin Center for History & Policy (University Archive)	Institutional history documenting Harold v. Regents racial discrimination case	Published 2022: “History of Racism and the Quest for Racial Justice at UCLA” UC BFB-RMP-1 (University Records Management Program): policy.ucop.edu	DOCUMENTED Harold v. Regents case published in UCLA’s own institutional history
Octagon Risk Services, Inc. (Workers’ Comp Claims Administrator for UC Los Angeles)	Complete workers’ compensation claim file, permanent disability determination, all medical reports, settlement records, benefit calculations	Cal. Code Regs. Title 8, §10102: Retain until ALL compensation paid dir.ca.gov/t8/10102 Cal. Code Regs. Title 8, §15400.2: “Claim files with awards for future benefits shall not be destroyed” dir.ca.gov/t8/15400_2 Cal. Code Regs. Title 8, §10101.1: Required claim file contents dir.ca.gov/t8/10101_1	NO RECORDS PRODUCED
UCLA Risk Management (Self-Insured Employer)	Workers’ compensation file, settlement agreement (Harold v. Regents), employer’s injury reports	Cal. Code Regs. Title 8, §15400.2: Self-insured employer claim files with future benefits “shall not be destroyed” dir.ca.gov/t8/15400_2 UC BFB-RMP-1 (University Records Management Program): policy.ucop.edu	NO RECORDS PRODUCED
UCLA Police Department (Personnel File Custodian)	Peace officer personnel file including workers’ compensation records, medical history, fitness for duty examinations, CCW records	Cal. Penal Code §832.8(b): Personnel records include “workers compensation records, medical releases” justia.com — Penal Code §832.8 Cal. Gov. Code §3305 (POBR): Anti-shadow-file provisions Cal. Gov. Code §3306.5 (POBR): Right to inspect personnel file SB 16 (Penal Code §832.7): Minimum 5-year retention for peace officer records	CONTRADICTORY Chief Ross: “Destroyed” Lt. Chobanian (2023&2026): “Comprehensive review of Harold’s file” Capt. Chobanian (2026):” I do not know what you are referring to regarding the other matters you mentioned with IOD, Chief Ross, your personnel file, etc.”
UC Office of General Counsel (Settlement Custodian)	Settlement agreement file (Harold v. Regents), all case correspondence, settlement terms governing lifetime medical benefits	Cal. State Bar Formal Op. 2001-157: Cannot destroy if prejudice to client; ongoing benefits = ongoing obligation calbar.ca.gov — Op. 2001-157 Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct 1.16 (file retention) UC BFB-RMP-1 (University Records Management Program)	NO RECORDS PRODUCED
UCOP Health & Welfare Administration (Thomas Herz, 2009–2010)	Disability classification records, benefits coding, system records, SSA compliance records	UC BFB-RMP-1 (University Records Management Program): policy.ucop.edu UC BFB-RMP-2 (Records Retention and Disposition): policy.ucop.edu	“NOT AWARE” Herz (March 29, 2010): “I am not aware of any settlements”
Third-Party Adjusting Company (Believed Gallagher or Gates, 2014–2015)	Disability records, settlement agreement, medical re-examination authority documentation	Cal. Code Regs. Title 8, §10102: Claims administrator file retention dir.ca.gov/t8/10102 Cal. Code Regs. Title 8, §10101.1: Required claim file contents dir.ca.gov/t8/10101_1	“KNEW NOTHING” Representative stated she “knew nothing about a settlement agreement or lawsuit”
UC “At Your Service” (RASC Customer Service, 2015)	Tort lawsuit records, workers’ compensation case file, settlement agreement, disability-to-retirement conversion records	UC BFB-RMP-1 (University Records Management Program): policy.ucop.edu	“NO RECORDS” Representative confirmed no records of tort lawsuit, WC case, or settlement
UC Benefits (Ida Fong, Benefits Counselor, February 2021)	Disability classification records, benefits coding, system records, family member data	UC BFB-RMP-1 (University Records Management Program): policy.ucop.edu	“LOST” / CORRUPTED Records “lost during computer system upgrades”; wrong family member (Max Harold) coded as disabled
Harold’s Former Attorneys (McNicholas & McNicholas; successor firms)	Complete case files: Harold v. Regents pleadings, settlement agreement, correspondence, WC case file	Cal. State Bar Formal Op. 2001-157: Minimum 5 years; cannot destroy if prejudice foreseeable calbar.ca.gov — Op. 2001-157 LA County Bar Op. 475 (1994): Minimum 5-year retention Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct 1.15(d)(5): 5-year record retention	NO RECORDS Attorneys retired; firms dissolved; no files transferred to client Note: Undisclosed conflict of interest (McNicholas Sr. represented the Regents)

Table Legend: Green rows indicate entities that retained or documented the relevant records. Coral rows indicate entities that, despite legal retention obligations, have produced no records, reported records as “lost,” “destroyed,” or stated they were “not aware” of the settlement, case, or records that California law required them to maintain.

THE TAX REPORTING RECORD: WHAT UC’S OWN 1099-R FORMS PROVE

The IRS Form 1099-R is the federal tax document that pension systems are required to file with both the IRS and the recipient each year. Box 7 of each 1099-R contains a Distribution Code that tells the IRS — and the taxpayer — how to classify the income. The three codes relevant to this case are:

Code 3 (Disability): Distribution to a disabled individual under the employer’s plan. Under IRS Publication 525 and 26 U.S.C. § 104(a)(1), disability income received under a workers’ compensation act or statute is excludable from gross income. For UC’s Duty Disability Income program, only approximately 7.3% of the gross distribution was reported as taxable (representing the return-of-contribution component). The remaining approximately 92.7% was tax-free.

Code 2 (Early Distribution, Exception Applies): Distribution before age 59½ that qualifies for an exception to the 10% early withdrawal penalty. When UC converted Harold’s classification from disability to retirement, the entire gross distribution became 100% taxable as ordinary income. No portion was excluded.

Code 7 (Normal Distribution): Distribution after age 59½. Standard retirement income, 100% taxable as ordinary income.

The following table presents every IRS Form 1099-R issued by UC Retirement System to Charles A. Harold that has been located for tax years 2010 through 2024. All data is transcribed directly from the forms as filed. The payer on every form is: Regents of the University of California, UC Retirement System, 300 Lakeside Drive (later 1111 Franklin Street), Oakland, CA.

TAX YEAR	IRS CODE	GROSS DIST.	TAXABLE AMT	FED TAX W/H	% TAXABLE
2010	3 — Disability	$30,660.80	$2,244.25	$0.00	7.3%
2011	3 — Disability	$31,274.01	$2,289.13	$0.00	7.3%
2012	3 — Disability	$31,899.49	$2,334.92	$0.00	7.3%
2013	3 — Disability	$32,537.50	$2,381.62	$0.00	7.3%
2014	3 — Disability	$33,188.26	$2,429.25	$0.00	7.3%
2015 (A)	3 — Disability	$15,557.34	$0.00	$0.00	0%
2015 (B)	2 — Early Ret.	$14,614.44	$14,614.44	$230.43	100%
2015 (C)	2 — Early Ret.	$30,171.78	$30,171.78	$230.43	100%
2016	2 — Early Ret.	$27,767.01	$27,767.01	$706.09	100%
2017	2 — Early Ret.	$28,790.51	$28,790.51	$798.88	100%
2018	2 — Early Ret.	$29,366.34	$29,366.34	$282.65	100%
2019	2 — Early Ret.	$29,953.67	$29,953.67	$0.00	100%
2020 (A)	2 — Early Ret.	$17,675.14	$17,675.14	$0.00	100%
2020 (B)	7 — Normal Dist.	$12,877.60	$12,877.60	$0.00	100%
2021	7 — Normal Dist.	$31,163.79	$31,163.79	$0.00	100%
2022	7 — Normal Dist.	$32,009.06	$32,009.06	$0.00	100%
2023	7 — Normal Dist.	$33,082.64	$33,082.64	$0.00	100%
2024	7 — Normal Dist.	$33,915.94	$33,915.94	$0.00	100%

Note regarding 2015: UC issued three separate 1099-R forms for tax year 2015. Form 2015(A), coded as Disability (Code 3), reports $15,557.34 in gross distribution with $0.00 taxable — representing the disability income portion (January through approximately May 2015). Form 2015(B), coded as Early Retirement (Code 2), reports $14,614.44 fully taxable — representing the retirement income portion (approximately June through December 2015). These two forms sum to $30,171.78. However, UC also issued Form 2015(C), which reports the entire $30,171.78 as a single Code 2 (Early Retirement) distribution, fully taxable. If all three forms were filed with the IRS, the IRS received $60,343.56 in reported distributions for $30,171.78 actually received — potentially triggering a tax deficiency notice for approximately $10,500 to $12,000 in taxes on phantom income that was never received.

Note regarding 2020: UC issued two separate 1099-R forms for tax year 2020. Form 2020(A), coded as Early Retirement (Code 2), reports $17,675.14 (January through approximately Harold’s 59½ birthday). Form 2020(B), coded as Normal Distribution (Code 7), reports $12,877.60 (post-59½). These two forms sum to $30,552.74, consistent with the annual distribution amount. The code change from 2 to 7 is age-triggered and is the only transition in this timeline that has a self-evident actuarial explanation.

What the Numbers Prove

Three distribution code transitions. UC’s own 1099-R filings show three transitions in how it classified Harold’s income to the IRS: Code 3 (Disability) from at least 2010 through early 2015; Code 2 (Early Retirement) from mid-2015 through early 2020; and Code 7 (Normal Distribution) from mid-2020 through 2024. The first transition — from Code 3 to Code 2 in 2015 — is the critical one: it is the moment UC’s tax reporting system reclassified Harold from disabled to retired. There is no document in any UC system that authorizes, explains, or memorializes this reclassification.

The tax impact is arithmetically certain. Under Code 3 (Disability), only approximately 7.3% of Harold’s gross distribution was taxable. Under Code 2 and Code 7, 100% became taxable. The difference in taxable income reported to the IRS — comparing what was reported under the retirement codes versus what would have been reported had the disability code continued — is approximately $25,000 to $31,000 per year in excess taxable income, totaling approximately $284,000 in excess reported taxable income from 2015 through 2024. At combined federal and state marginal tax rates, this represents approximately $85,000 to $99,000 in excess taxes paid if Harold should have remained classified as disabled.

The gross distribution decreased at the point of conversion. In 2014 (the last full year of disability classification), Harold’s gross distribution was $33,188.26. In 2016 (the first full year of retirement classification), the gross distribution dropped to $27,767.01 — a reduction of $5,421.25, or 16.3%. This reduction is consistent with UC beginning to deduct medical insurance premiums from Harold’s monthly payment at the time of conversion, a deduction that was not applied during the disability period because the settlement agreement provided for employer-paid medical coverage. If that settlement obligation remains in effect, those deductions were unauthorized.

The 1099-R record is irreconcilable with the August 25, 2023 determination. Lieutenant Chobanian’s letter determined that Harold’s “status was designated as medically separated on March 1, 1996” and that he remains on Duty Disability Income. If that is correct, then UC has been filing incorrect 1099-R forms with the IRS for ten consecutive years (2015–2024), misreporting disability income as retirement income, causing Harold to pay taxes on income that should have been approximately 92.7% tax-free. Alternatively, if UC’s 1099-R reporting is correct and Harold was validly converted to retirement income in 2015, then the August 25, 2023 determination is based on an incorrect classification. Both positions cannot simultaneously be true. Both are UC’s own records.

WHY THESE CONTRADICTIONS MATTER NOW

Harold is now sixty-five years old. In 2025, he enrolled in Medicare as required by federal law. That enrollment process triggered a cascade of discoveries that revealed the full scope of the institutional record-keeping failures documented in this chapter. Specifically, upon turning sixty-five and attempting to coordinate his benefits, Harold discovered that the contradictions in UC’s records are not merely administrative — they are actively causing ongoing harm across multiple systems simultaneously:

Social Security Benefits: The contradictory classification of Harold’s status — “medically separated” (UCLA PD), “retiree” (UC RASC), “retiree on disability” (UCOP/Herz), “disabled” (UC Benefits/Fong) — has created inconsistencies that affect the calculation and reporting of his Social Security benefits at the precise moment those benefits become most critical.

Medicare Coverage: Harold’s Medicare enrollment is directly affected by whether UC classifies him as disabled or retired, as the two pathways carry different eligibility rules, coverage dates, and coordination of benefits requirements. UC’s own records cannot agree on which pathway applies.

Medicare Supplemental Insurance: Harold’s ability to obtain and maintain Medicare supplemental coverage depends on accurate underlying records regarding his employment status, disability classification, and primary coverage history — all of which are contradicted across UC’s institutional systems.

Blue Cross Coverage: Harold has maintained Blue Cross coverage through the UC/Anthem Blue Cross plan for decades. Blue Cross has recently indicated that their records show only approximately two years of coverage, stating that Harold cancelled his prior coverage — which is factually incorrect. This discrepancy is consistent with the pattern of missing and corrupted records documented throughout this chapter. (See Chapter 03: Four UC Systems Can’t Agree on Coverage; Chapter 05: 25 Data Breaches Exposed the Systems That Were Supposed to Protect Harold’s Records.)

UC’s Own Medicare Transition Materials vs. Via Benefits: On May 22, 2025, Harold attended UC’s own RASC Monthly Medicare Webinar (Webinar ID: 952 3749 5832, organized by RASC Insurance Liaison Alicia Rivera via UCOP Zoom), during which UC representatives informed attendees that Blue Cross members would be automatically transitioned to UC Medicare PPO administered by Anthem Blue Cross. UC’s own published document “Medicare & Your UC Medical Plan” confirms this automatic path with no mention of Via Benefits. Fifty-seven days later, Via Benefits began contacting Harold about a program Harold was explicitly ineligible for due to his disability status. (See Contradiction 10; Chapter 01: The Unqualified Benefits Transfer; Chapter 02: The Right to Rescind the Via Benefits Enrollment.)

Upcoming Medical Treatment: Harold is currently scheduled for cancer surgery in February 2026. The unresolved contradictions in his institutional status directly threaten the continuity of his medical coverage at the moment he needs it most. Any disruption, delay, or denial of coverage resulting from UC’s inability to determine whether Harold is “retired,” “medically separated,” “disabled,” or a “retiree on disability” could have life-threatening consequences.

Income — Past and Present: If UC’s current position is that Harold remains on Duty Disability Income (as stated in the August 25, 2023 denial), then UC has been wrongly deducting medical insurance premiums and reporting taxable income that should have been approximately 92.7% tax-free for nearly a decade. The estimated financial harm is $133,000 to $150,000 in wrongly deducted premiums and excess federal and state taxes. If UC’s retirement system position is correct and Harold was validly converted to retirement income in 2015, then the CCW denial was based on an incorrect classification. Both positions cannot be simultaneously true, but both are currently causing financial harm. (See Chapter 07: UC’s Own Tax Filings Expose the Switch — $149K in Harm.)

It is against this backdrop — a permanent disability determination that California law required UC to preserve, ten institutional contradictions that UC’s own records cannot reconcile, and a cascade of real-world consequences now affecting Harold’s health, income, and federal benefits at age sixty-five — that the specific contradictions documented in UC’s own records are presented below.

I. SCHRÖDINGER’S RETIREE: 10 INSTITUTIONAL STATUS CONTRADICTIONS

The core issue is straightforward: multiple UC institutional entities hold mutually exclusive classifications of Harold’s employment and benefits status. Each entity’s position is internally consistent, but the positions are irreconcilable with each other. In quantum physics, Schrödinger’s Cat is simultaneously alive and dead until someone opens the box. Apparently, Harold is simultaneously retired and not retired depending on which UC office opens his file. The only difference is that Schrödinger’s Cat never had to pay taxes on being dead.

Contradiction 1: UCLA PD’s 2023 Determination vs. UC Retirement’s Records

UCLA PD’s Position: Lieutenant Chobanian’s August 25, 2023 email states that Harold’s “status was designated as medically separated on March 1, 1996” and that I am currently receiving Duty Disability Income, citing a “UCOP mandate prohibiting the issuance of a concealed weapons permit, identification card or retiree CCW privileges.”

UC Retirement Administration’s Position: UC RASC prepared a Retirement Estimator on April 2, 2015, listing Harold’s Retirement/Cashout Date as June 1, 2015. (Document: 20150402_UCLA_Retirement_Estimator_sent_to_Ida.) On March 2, 2015, UC RASC sent me a letter offering conversion from Disability Income to Retirement Income. (Document: 20150302_UC_Retirement_Center_Letter.) Since 2016, every IRS Form 1099-R issued to me by UC has carried Distribution Code 2 (Early Distribution, Exception Applies) or Code 7 (Normal Distribution) — both of which are retirement codes — not Code 3 (Disability). My income has been treated as 100% taxable since 2015, and medical insurance premiums of $727.48 per month are deducted from Harold’s pension payment.

The Contradiction: If Harold is currently receiving Duty Disability Income, as the August 25, 2023 determination states, then UC Retirement has been issuing incorrect 1099-R forms for nine consecutive tax years (2016–2024), Harold’s income should be approximately 92.7% tax-free (as it was from 2010–2014 under Code 3), and UC should be paying Harold’s medical insurance premiums rather than deducting them from Harold’s payment. If Harold is a Retiree, as UC Retirement’s own records and tax filings indicate, then Harold is not receiving DDI, and the Gold Book provision you cited does not apply to Harold.

Harold had to take his shoes off to count this one, but if the August 25, 2023 determination is correct and Harold is still receiving Duty Disability Income, then UC has been wrongly deducting medical insurance premiums and taxing income that should have been tax-free for nearly a decade — a conservative estimate of $133,000 to $150,000 in overpayments and excess taxes owed back to Harold. (Harold accepts Venmo).

Both positions cannot be simultaneously true.

Contradiction 2: UCLA PD’s 2023 Determination vs. UCLA PD’s Own CCW Permits

UCLA PD’s 2023 Position: Harold is “medically separated” and receiving DDI, therefore ineligible for a retiree CCW.

UCLA PD’s Prior Official Acts: On September 6, 2002, UCLA PD issued Harold CCW Permit #1. The card is stamped “RETIRED.” It identifies Harold as “Police Officer” of the “University of California Police Department” and authorizes a concealed firearm per Penal Code section 12027a. It was signed by the Chief of Police, Clarance Chapman. (Document: 20020906_CCW_Issued.)

On August 29, 2013, UCLA PD issued Harold CCW Permit #2. The card states “RETIRED” and “Retired in good standing from service as a Peace Officer of the state of California.” It lists Badge #341, Rank: Officer, Date Retired: 03/01/96, Service Yrs: 8, and is signed by Chief James D. Herren. The reverse states: “This retired officer is authorized to carry a concealed firearm and meets State firearms qualification standards established by the University of California Police Department, pursuant to California State Law.” It cites CPC sections 25455, 25460 & 25465. (Document: 20130829_UCLA_PD_CCW_Issued.)

From 2011 through 2017, UCLA PD personnel invited Harold to annual retiree range qualifications. Every email addressed Harold as a “Retiree.” These communications were sent by Sgt. Banuelos, Renee Granger, Sgt. Jason Pak, and Sgt. Kevin Kilgore. (Documents: 20110131_cah_to_herren_chief_re_ccw, 20110302_re_ccw_qualifications, 20111103_Renee_Granger_Range_qualifications, 20141205_ccw_Upcoming_qualification, 20150311_ucpd_range_dates_ccw, 20160208_range_qualifications, 20170201_CCW_Upcoming_Range_Dates_UCLA_PD_Retirees.)

The Contradiction: The same department that now classifies Harold as “medically separated” and “not retired” is the same department that, on two separate occasions, issued Harold official identification cards stamped “RETIRED,” signed by the Chief of Police, and invited Harold to retiree range qualifications for over a decade. The same date — March 1, 1996 — appears on both the 2013 CCW card as “Date Retired” and in the 2023 denial letter as the date of “medical separation.” The same date cannot simultaneously be a retirement date and a non-retirement medical separation date.

Contradiction 3: The Permanent Disability Determination vs. the 2014–2015 Re-Examination Demand

The Octagon Letter: On August 8, 2001, Octagon Risk Services, Inc., acting as claims administrator for UC Los Angeles, issued a “NOTICE REGARDING START & END OF PERMANENT DISABILITY BENEFITS.” The letter states that Dr. Steven Silbart’s report dated December 27, 1999, determined that Harold’s industrial injury of February 16, 1996 became permanent and stationary on July 21, 1997, resulting in a permanent disability rating of 6 ¾%. Benefits were calculated at $3,075.98 per month tax-free. (Document: 20010808_Octagon_Risk_Services_Letter.)

The Adjusting Company Demand: In approximately 2014–2015, Harold began receiving letters from a third-party workers’ compensation adjusting company representing UC (believed to be Gallagher or Gates, not Octagon). These letters demanded I appear for a medical examination to determine whether I “still qualified for Disability Income.” When Harold explained that his status was governed by a settlement agreement, the adjusting company representative stated she “knew nothing about a settlement agreement or lawsuit.” She stated Harold was required to submit to the medical examination or Harold’s disability payments would be terminated.

The Contradiction: UC’s own claims administrator determined my disability was permanent and stationary in 2001. A different UC-contracted adjusting company, operating without access to the settlement records, demanded re-examination of a condition already determined to be permanent. The adjusting company’s statement that it had no knowledge of Harold’s settlement agreement raises a threshold question: if UC’s own agents did not have access to the settlement file, what happened to those records between 2003 and 2014?

In fact, the pattern of missing settlement records extends back even further than 2014. Between September 2009 and June 2010, Thomas Herz of the UC Office of the President — working first in UCOP Retiree Insurance, then in UCOP Health & Welfare Administration — corresponded with Harold extensively regarding a UC requirement that Harold apply for Social Security disability benefits (SSDI).

On September 29, 2009, Herz contacted Harold requesting that he obtain an SSA disability determination. (Document: 20090929_Thomas_Herz_re_SSA_Yahoo_Mail_Re_SSA_determination.)

On January 22, 2010, Herz followed up, confirming UC’s “need for a copy from SSA once they determine whether you are or are not eligible for disability benefits.” (Document: 20100122_Thomas_Herz_re_SSA_Yahoo_Mail_Re_documents_for_compliance.)

On March 29, 2010, when Harold specifically informed Herz that Harold had a settlement agreement with UC that included lifetime medical coverage, Herz responded: “I am not aware of any settlements that UC has made that specifically exempts one individual from the general insurance regulations and I doubt that legal counsel would have established this kind of precedent in Harold’s case.” Herz then CC’d Bridget Sheehan-Watanabe, Health Care Facilitator at the UCLA Benefits Office, pulling in yet another UC entity. (Document: 20100329_Thomas_Herz_Yahoo_Mail_Fw_document.)

This means that as early as 2009–2010 — five years before the adjusting company made the same claim in 2014–2015, six years before “At Your Service” confirmed it in 2015, and eleven years before Ida Fong confirmed records were lost in 2021 — yet another UCOP office had no knowledge of Harold’s settlement agreement. That is now four separate UC entities across eleven years (2009–2021) that all independently reported having no records of or knowledge of the settlement: UCOP Health & Welfare Administration (Herz, 2009–2010), the third-party adjusting company (2014–2015), “At Your Service” (2015), and UC Benefits (Ida Fong, 2021).

This question is not rhetorical. Between 2005 and 2015, the following publicly disclosed data breaches affected the UC and Anthem Blue Cross systems responsible for maintaining records of UC employees, retirees, and their dependents: UCLA’s university database was breached from October 2005 through November 2006, compromising records of approximately 800,000 individuals (disclosed December 12, 2006). The Anthem Inc. cyberattack — the largest health data breach in United States history, attributed to Chinese government-sponsored hackers — compromised 78.8 million records including employment information and income data from February 18, 2014 through January 27, 2015 (disclosed February 4, 2015).

From 2003 until January 1, 2014, Anthem provided health insurance to UC employees and retirees. The UCLA Health System cyberattack compromised 4.5 million records including Social Security numbers and health plan identification numbers from September 21, 2014 through May 5, 2015 (disclosed July 17, 2015). These breaches were active during the precise period in which UC’s adjusting company reported having no knowledge of Harold’s settlement agreement and “At Your Service” reported having no records of Harold’s tort lawsuit, workers’ compensation case, or settlement.

In February 2021, UC Benefits employee Ida Fong separately confirmed that UC records had been lost during internal computer system upgrades. The complete data breach timeline — documenting twenty-five separate incidents affecting UC, UCLA, and Anthem Blue Cross systems between 2005 and 2026 — is addressed in full detail in Chapter 05: 25 Data Breaches Exposed the Systems That Were Supposed to Protect Harold’s Records.

Contradiction 4: The “Affirmative Election” and the Conditions Under Which It Was Made

The Jacobs court held that under the UCRP, “[A] person may convert to Retirement only by making an affirmative election to do so.” Harold made that election in early 2015. However, the documented conditions under which that election occurred are as follows:

Critically, the coercion did not begin in 2014. It began at least five years earlier. Between September 2009 and June 2010, Thomas Herz of UCOP Health & Welfare Administration repeatedly demanded that Harold apply for Social Security disability benefits (SSDI), warning on March 9, 2010 that “UC needs a determination of whether or not a person is eligible for SS disability benefits as that affects Medicare eligibility” and that “Without such documentation, you remain out of compliance and jeopardize your UC medical benefits.” (Document: 20100308_Thomas_Herz_re_SSA_Yahoo_Mail_Fw_document.)

On April 6, 2010, Herz escalated the threat: “Failure to provide this determination, either in the affirmative or negative, can result in an offset fee being imposed on your check and termination of UC medical coverage.” Herz set a May 2010 deadline. (Document: 20100406_Thomas_Herz_SSA_application_Yahoo_Mail_Re_documentation.)

Harold complied. On April 9, 2010, Harold went to the Social Security office and was told he did not meet the criteria. On June 8, 2010, Harold reported to Herz that the SSA representative said that since Harold earned more than $12,000 per year, Harold was automatically ineligible for SSA disability benefits. (Document: 20100608_Thomas_Herz_Yahoo_Mail_Re_SSA_letter.)

The institutional significance of this SSA episode is that if Harold had been found eligible for SSDI, I would have become Medicare-eligible after 24 months, and Medicare would have become the primary payer — shifting medical costs off UC’s books. When that avenue failed, the pattern escalated: approximately four years later, the adjusting company took the more aggressive approach of demanding a medical re-examination of my permanent disability — and when Harold could not produce the settlement records (because UC could not find them either), Harold was left with the “choice” of converting to Retirement Income or losing Harold’s benefits entirely. The specific conditions under which the 2015 election occurred are as follows:

The Social Security Administration Itself Confirmed Harold’s Ineligibility: In response to Herz’s demands, I attempted to comply. On April 9, 2010, at 11:27 AM, Harold wrote to Herz: “I tried to apply for benefits as it stated on the form but it would not let me because it said I need to be 61 years or older.”

Later that same day, at 12:51 PM, after physically visiting a Social Security office, Harold wrote: “It turns out I am not crazy. he was in the SS office and the guy tells me he was blocked from proceeding because I did not meet the criteria.” The Social Security Administration itself — a federal agency — determined that Harold did not meet the eligibility criteria for the benefits UC was demanding I apply for. UC was requiring, as a condition of continued benefits, that Harold obtain a federal benefit for which the federal agency itself determined I was ineligible.

Herz Confirmed UC’s Systematic SSDI Pipeline for Disability Recipients: Also on April 9, 2010, at 11:38 AM, Herz replied to Harold’s report of SSA blocking: “I am surprised to hear that you are being prevented from applying for SS disability benefits due to being under 61 as a number of UC people on UCRP disability have applied for SSDI and some have been awarded them despite being considerably younger than 61.” This statement is a direct admission by a UCOP official that UC systematically directed its disability recipients to apply for SSDI.

The purpose of this pipeline is evident from the correspondence: once a UC disability recipient qualifies for SSDI, they become eligible for Medicare, which shifts primary medical coverage responsibility from UC to the federal government. Herz’s statement transforms what the current letter describes as an analytical inference into a documented institutional admission by a UCOP official.

(a) Harold was threatened with total loss of disability income if he did not submit to a medical re-examination of a condition already determined to be permanent.

(b) The entity making the threat had no record of Harold’s settlement agreement.

(c) Harold’s former attorneys had retired and their firms had no records of the case.

(d) UC’s own “At Your Service” representatives confirmed they had no records of Harold’s tort lawsuit, workers’ compensation case, or settlement agreement.

(e) When Harold specifically asked an “At Your Service” representative about his medical insurance, he was told that UC would continue to pay for Harold’s medical insurance because Harold was listed as disabled and had been receiving disability income.

(f) The March 2, 2015 UC RASC letter stated: “If you choose a monthly income, you may continue your UC sponsored medical, dental, legal and/or vision if enrolled.”

(g) Following conversion, Harold’s payments dropped from approximately $3,000/month tax-free to approximately $1,300/month taxable, with insurance premiums now deducted — approximately $1,000 less than the Retirement Estimator’s own figure of $2,341.04.

Regardless of whether this election is characterized as voluntary or coerced, the outcome is the same: UC’s own retirement system converted Harold to Retirement Income effective June 1, 2015. UC’s own 1099-R forms confirm Harold has been receiving Retirement Income, not DDI, for nearly a decade. If that conversion was valid, then Harold is a Retiree and the Gold Book DDI provision does not apply. If that conversion was invalid, then Harold should be restored to DDI status with all attendant benefits — including tax-free income and UC-paid insurance. Harold had to take his shoes off to count this one, but if the August 25, 2023 determination is correct and Harold is still receiving Duty Disability Income, then UC has been wrongly deducting medical insurance premiums and taxing income that should have been tax-free for nearly a decade — a conservative estimate of $133,000 to $150,000 in overpayments and excess taxes owed back to Harold.

Contradiction 5: Service Credit — 8 Years vs. 21 Years vs. 10+ Years

Harold’s 2013 CCW card states “Service Yrs: 8.” Chobanian’s initial August 22, 2023 inquiry questioned whether Harold had ten years of law enforcement service for LEOSA purposes. When “At Your Service” processed Harold’s 2015 conversion, they informed Harold he had 21 years of service credit — combining active-duty time (1989–1996) with disability-time accrual under UCRP § 8.18(e).

The Contradiction: Which service credit figure did UCLA PD use to determine LEOSA eligibility — the 8 years shown on the CCW card it issued, the 10-year threshold referenced in your August 22, 2023 inquiry, or the 21 years calculated by UC’s own retirement system? If LEOSA requires ten years, and UC’s own retirement system credits Harold with twenty-one years, then the service credit basis for the CCW denial requires reconciliation with UC RASC’s calculation.

Contradiction 6: The Personnel File

The August 25, 2023 email states that Chobanian conducted “a comprehensive review of your file.” Several years prior, when Harold requested a copy of his UCPD personnel file from then Chief Ross, who informed Harold that his personnel file had been destroyed.

The Contradiction: If Harold’s personnel file was destroyed, what file was reviewed? If a file exists, it apparently does not contain the June 1, 2015 retirement conversion, the 21-year service credit calculation, or the 1099-R code history — all of which are maintained by UC RASC and contradict the “medically separated” classification upon which the CCW denial was based.

February 10, 2026 Update: On February 10, 2026, Captain Chobanian responded to a formal records preservation demand by email (6:14 PM), stating in relevant part:

"I do not know what you are referring to regarding the other matters you mentioned with IOD, Chief Ross, your personnel file, etc."

"I reviewed your 'file' and cross-referenced the records, including your date of separation, classification, status, and our internal records."

These statements deepen the personnel file contradiction in five respects:

First, "IOD" — Injury on Duty — is a legal term of art in California workers' compensation law. It is a formal legal finding that an injury is industrial in nature, arising out of and in the course of employment (Cal. Lab. Code §3600). Captain Chobanian's own August 25, 2023 letter classified Harold as "medically separated on March 1, 1996." A medical separation is, by definition, the result of an IOD determination — it does not exist without one. An IOD determination also means there was a workers' compensation case (Claim #199650445, Date of Injury 02/16/1996), which under California Code of Regulations, Title 8, §15400.2, "shall not be destroyed." A Captain of Police assigned to the Administrative Division — the division responsible for personnel records and compliance — stating he does not know what "IOD" refers to in the context of his own classification is either not credible, or confirms that whatever file he reviewed did not contain the workers' compensation records that California Penal Code §832.8(b) defines as part of a peace officer's personnel records (which include "workers compensation records, medical releases").

Second, Karl Ross is not an unknown figure. Ross served as Acting Chief of UCLA Police Department. His contact information would be available through departmental records, prior department-wide notifications, and institutional directories. Captain Chobanian did not need Harold to explain who Ross was — he could have contacted Ross directly to inquire about the file destruction he reported.

Third, Captain Chobanian places "your personnel file" in the category of things he does not understand ("I do not know what you are referring to regarding... your personnel file, etc."). Yet on August 25, 2023, Captain Chobanian wrote: "After a comprehensive review of your file, I have determined you are ineligible for a CCW." If Captain Chobanian reviewed a "file" in 2023 but claims in 2026 not to know what Harold is referring to regarding his "personnel file," this raises the question identified in POBR Question (a) below: Was the 2023 file a personnel file, or was it something else?

Fourth, the February 10, 2026 email introduces a new term: "internal records." In 2023, Captain Chobanian referenced "your file." In 2026, he references "your 'file'" and separately "our internal records." Under POBR, Government Code §3305 prohibits the maintenance of any file "used for any personnel purposes" that the officer has not reviewed and signed. If "internal records" are separate from the personnel file, they may constitute exactly the kind of shadow file the POBR was enacted to prevent. Harold was never given the opportunity to review, inspect, or sign any material in these "internal records."

Fifth, Captain Chobanian states he "cross-referenced" Harold's file with records including "date of separation, classification, status, and our internal records." Four independent sources have confirmed that UC's records are missing, destroyed, or incomplete: (1) Karl Ross — personnel file "old and had been destroyed"; (2) Ida Fong — records "lost during computer system upgrades" (March 18, 2021); (3) UCRAYS representative — UC only retains records "for a couple years" (February 4, 2026); (4) Anthem Blue Cross portal — no plan records prior to January 1, 2024 (January 30, 2026). If records exist sufficient for cross-referencing, they have not been produced in response to either of Harold's two formal audit requests — the first submitted November 9, 2021 (unanswered for over four years) and the second submitted January 31, 2026. If the cross-referenced records included UC RASC data, Captain Chobanian would have found the June 1, 2015 retirement conversion, the 21-year service credit calculation, and the 1099-R Code 2/Code 7 tax classification history — all of which contradict the "medically separated" classification upon which the CCW denial was based.

Contradiction 7: The Personnel File and the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights (POBR)

The personnel file contradiction identified above implicates the California Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBR), Government Code sections 3301–3313, which the Legislature has declared to be “a matter of statewide concern” applicable to “all public safety officers … wherever situated within the State of California.” (Gov. Code § 3301.)

The POBR contains specific protections against the maintenance of undisclosed or “shadow” personnel files. Government Code section 3305 provides:

“No public safety officer shall have any comment adverse to his interest entered in his personnel file, or any other file used for any personnel purposes by his employer, without the public safety officer having first read and signed the instrument containing the adverse comment indicating he is aware of such comment …”

The critical phrase is “or any other file used for any personnel purposes.” This anti-shadow-file provision exists precisely to prevent law enforcement agencies from maintaining unofficial, secondary, or reconstructed files that could be used to initiate adverse employment or benefits actions against peace officers outside the protections of the officer’s official personnel file — including defeating discovery motions or supporting adverse determinations the officer has no opportunity to review or contest.

The POBR further provides at Government Code section 3306.5(a) that every employer shall permit a public safety officer to “inspect personnel files that are used or have been used to determine that officer’s qualifications for employment, promotion, additional compensation, or termination or other disciplinary action.” Section 3306.5(b) imposes an affirmative duty: “Each employer shall keep each public safety officer’s personnel file or a true and correct copy thereof, and shall make the file or copy thereof available within a reasonable period of time after a request therefor by the officer.”

Additionally, Penal Code section 832.8 defines “personnel records” broadly as “any file maintained under an individual officer’s name” — encompassing personal data, medical history, complaints, and any information relating to job performance.

The POBR Questions: Given the foregoing, the following questions must be answered:

(a) Was the file reviewed on August 25, 2023 Harold’s official personnel file, or some other file maintained under Harold’s name or used for personnel purposes? Harold is entitled to an immediate copy of whatever file was reviewed. Under POBR, this is a non-discretionary right.

(b) If Harold’s official personnel file was destroyed as previously represented by UCLA PD, what is the source and custodial chain of the file that was reviewed?

(c) Does UCLA PD maintain, or did it at any time maintain, more than one file on Harold used for personnel purposes — in potential violation of the anti-shadow-file protections of Government Code section 3305? (Note: Kit Espinosa of UCLA PD told Harold they did).

(d) Was Harold given the opportunity to review and sign any adverse comments, classifications, or status designations in the file reviewed — including the “medically separated” classification used to deny Harold’s CCW — before they were used to support an adverse determination, as required by Government Code section 3305?

(e) If the file was destroyed, was that destruction consistent with the employer’s duty to retain personnel records under Government Code section 3306.5(b)?

The CCW denial of August 25, 2023 is an adverse determination based on a status classification contained in whatever file was reviewed. Under the POBR, Harold is entitled to know what file was used, to inspect that file, and to have been afforded the opportunity to review and respond to any adverse material before it was used against him. None of these protections were provided.

February 10, 2026 Update — The Decision-Maker and Due Process: Captain Chobanian's February 10, 2026 email states: "The decision to decline your request for a CCW is final." This language is personal, not institutional. In 2023: "I have determined you are ineligible." In 2026: "The decision to decline your request... is final." At no point in any correspondence has Captain Chobanian stated that the Chief of Police made this determination, that UC legal counsel was consulted, or that a departmental review was conducted. This is internally inconsistent with Captain Chobanian's own August 22, 2023 email, which stated: "The final decision regarding the issuance of any CCWs rests with the Chief of Police following the existing departmental policy and laws."

No hearing was provided at any stage of this process. Under the POBR, an adverse action based on information in a personnel file (or any file used for personnel purposes) requires notice and opportunity to respond (Gov. Code §3305). Under Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985), a recognized property interest cannot be deprived without due process — notice and an opportunity to be heard before the deprivation. Under California Penal Code §26310, a CCW denial requires written notice within 15 days. Under Penal Code §26320, a three-member review board is required upon request. None of these protections were provided. No appeal rights were identified in any correspondence.

Additionally, Captain Chobanian's February 10, 2026 email states: "Based on your last email, I will no longer communicate with you since you have threatened legal action against me." Harold's prior correspondence — specifically the February 8, 2026 letter — did include a Notice of Personal Liability citing 42 U.S.C. §1983, a formal litigation hold, and a data preservation demand. However, notifying a public official of the legal consequences of their actions under established federal civil rights law is not a "threat" — it is a legal notification of existing law that has been clearly established since 1871. The distinction is significant: Harold cited a statute and its application to documented facts. Captain Chobanian characterized this legal notification as a personal threat and used it as the stated basis for terminating all further communication — one hour and ten minutes after receiving Harold's February 10, 2026 formal demand for records reconciliation, which carried a compliance deadline of February 24, 2026. The effect of Captain Chobanian's refusal to communicate is that the formal records requests contained in Harold's February 8, 2026 correspondence — including the POBR requests at items (a) through (h) — and the records preservation demand in Harold's February 10, 2026 correspondence now have no identified point of contact at UCLA PD. Captain Chobanian's February 8, 2026 letter was copied to UCLA Chief of Police Craig Valenzuela ([email protected]; [email protected]), UC RASC, FUPOA, the Daily Bruin, and the UCLA Luskin Center for History and Policy. No response has been received from any CC'd party as of this writing.

Contradiction 8: The Harold Family Disability Coding

In February 2021, Ida Fong of UC Benefits contacted Harold regarding his son Max Harold, who was listed as “disabled” in UC’s system. Max Harold has never been disabled. Charles Harold Sr. is the one who was disabled.

The Significance: UC’s system contained disability-related data associated with the Harold family, but assigned it to the wrong individual. This is consistent with data corruption during system migrations or breaches, and raises the question of whether Harold’s own disability status records were similarly corrupted, lost, or reassigned during the same period. (See Chapter 05: 25 Data Breaches Exposed the Systems That Were Supposed to Protect Harold’s Records.)

Contradiction 9: The UCOP “Retiree on Disability” Classification (Thomas Herz, 2009–2010)

UCOP’s Position: Between September 29, 2009 and June 8, 2010, Thomas Herz of the UC Office of the President corresponded with Harold across multiple emails regarding UC’s requirement that I apply for Social Security disability benefits. Herz’s title changed during this period from “Retiree Insurance, University of California, Office of the President” (September 29, 2009) to “Health & Welfare Administration, University of California, Office of the President” (January 22, 2010 and subsequent correspondence).

On March 29, 2010, in an email exchange in which Harold raised his settlement agreement and lifetime medical coverage, Herz classified Harold as follows: “The requirement does apply to you as it does to all other retirees on disability.” (Document: 20100329_Thomas_Herz_Yahoo_Mail_Re_document.) The phrase “retirees on disability” is Herz’s exact language — a hybrid classification used by UCOP itself.

Three Departmental Titles in One Email Chain: Herz’s own email signatures reveal that during this single correspondence (September 2009 through June 2010), he used three different UCOP departmental titles. On September 29, 2009, Herz signed as “Retiree Insurance, University of California, Office of the President.” On January 22, 2010, he signed as “Health & Welfare Administration, University of California, Office of the President.” On March 8, 2010, he signed as “Retiree Administration Service Center, University of California, Office of the President.” This means that during the nine months UCOP was demanding Harold apply for Social Security disability benefits, Harold’s file was handled by — or at minimum routed through — three separately named UCOP departments. Not one of these three departments could locate Harold’s settlement agreement.

The “Myth in the Oral Tradition” Dismissal: On March 29, 2010, at 12:22 PM, Herz wrote the following regarding Harold’s settlement’s lifetime medical benefit: “Lifetime medical is not a vested benefit for any UC retiree although we have provided this benefit for decades. It has moved into the realm of myths in the oral tradition since there is nothing in writing in our guidelines that promises this in perpetuity.” This statement is significant for two reasons. First, it demonstrates that Herz was not passively unaware of Harold’s settlement terms — he was actively dismissing them as folklore. Second, the settlement term Herz characterized as a “myth” was a negotiated term of a legal settlement that UC had been honoring for twelve consecutive years at the time he wrote those words. UC’s own twelve-year pattern of compliance constitutes the strongest possible evidence that the term existed in writing — in a document that UC was then unable to locate because of the records failures documented in this chapter.

Harold’s Direct Request to Verify Settlement with UC Legal: On April 8, 2010, at 10:51 PM, Harold wrote directly to Herz: “I would like you to check with your legal department about my settlement before you decide on any action regarding my insurance. I think you will find it was a unique case.” This is a documented, timestamped request from the beneficiary to the plan administrator, specifically directing UC to verify the settlement terms with UC’s own legal department. If Herz checked with UC legal and they could not locate the settlement: that is a records failure. If Herz did not check with UC legal despite the beneficiary’s direct written request: that is a failure of administrative due diligence. Either outcome could have resolved this matter in 2010 — five years before the 2015 conversion crisis.

The Contradiction: Herz’s classification of Harold as a “retiree on disability” does not match any of the other institutional classifications. UCLA PD (2023) classifies me as “medically separated” — explicitly not retired. UC RASC (2015–present) classifies me as a “Retiree” — no longer disabled. The Gold Book policy states that a DDI officer “has not retired or separated from the University of California.” Yet UCOP’s own Health & Welfare Administration, in 2010, used a hybrid term — “retirees on disability” — that treats Harold as simultaneously retired and disabled. This is now a fifth distinct institutional classification of the same individual by the same university system:

(1) UCLA PD (2023): “medically separated” — receiving DDI, not retired.

(2) UC RASC (2015–present): “Retiree” — Distribution Codes 2/7, taxable income, premiums deducted.

(3) UCLA PD (2002, 2013): “RETIRED” — stamped on two CCW permits signed by the Chief of Police.

(4) UCOP Health & Welfare Administration (Herz, 2009–2010): “retiree on disability” — a hybrid classification.

(5) UC Benefits (Ida Fong, 2021): “disabled” — but assigned to the wrong family member (Max Harold).

Five classifications. Five UC entities. One individual. The fact that UCOP’s own Health & Welfare office used a term — “retirees on disability” — that exists nowhere in the UCRP, the Gold Book, or the Jacobs decision further demonstrates that the institutional classification system for Harold’s status has been internally inconsistent for at least sixteen years.

Contradiction 10: UC’s Own Medicare Transition Materials vs. the Via Benefits Pipeline

UC’s Own Published Transition Path: On May 22, 2025, Harold and his wife attended a “Monthly Medicare Webinar — Presented by RASC,” conducted by RASC Insurance Liaisons via UCOP Zoom (Webinar ID: 952 3749 5832). The webinar was organized by Alicia Rivera, Insurance Liaison, and hosted on UC Office of the President’s Zoom platform (UCOP.zoom.us).

Harold’s Google Calendar entry, created April 9, 2025, confirms his registration. The webinar description stated: “We will be providing an educational webinar on important Medicare topics for UC retirees. After the webinar, there will be ample time for an in-depth Q&A session, where retirees can ask questions about their particular situation.” During this webinar, UC representatives informed attendees that retirees currently enrolled in the UC Anthem Blue Cross program would be automatically transitioned to the corresponding UC Medicare plan.

UC’s own published document, “Medicare & Your UC Medical Plan,” distributed through the UCLA Emeriti/Retirees Relations Center (ERRC) and available on the UCLA ERRC website, confirms this representation. The document states: “For members covered by these plans, you will transition to the UC Medicare PPO plan, administered by Anthem Blue Cross.” The operative word is “will” — not “may,” not “can elect to.” Harold and his wife were also informed that they could not elect a different coverage program because their existing UC Blue Cross enrollment determined their Medicare transition path. (Source: UCLA ERRC, errc.ucla.edu — Medicare & Your UC Medical Plan.)

What This Document Does Not Contain: This UC-published document contains no mention of Via Benefits. No mention of the Medicare Coordinator Program. No mention of a $4,000 annual stipend as an alternative to UC group coverage. The automatic transition path described by UC’s own RASC was to UC Medicare PPO — administered by Anthem Blue Cross. Not Via Benefits. Not the Medicare Coordinator Program.

What Happened 57 Days Later: On July 18, 2025, Via Benefits logged a “call” from Harold that Harold never made. (See Chapter 01: The Unqualified Benefits Transfer, Section 1.) This entry initiated a pipeline to transfer Harold out of UC group coverage and into the Via Benefits Medicare Coordinator Program — a program that UC’s own RASC webinar never mentioned and that UC’s own published materials do not describe as part of the Blue Cross transition path.

Via Benefits’ Own Eligibility Rules Exclude Harold: Via Benefits’ own FAQ document (Rev. 2021-03-19), administered by Via Benefits on UC’s behalf, states at FAQ #2: “To be eligible under this program, couples should be at least 64 years old and living or moving to a state outside of California and not covering any non-Medicare dependents under their plan. Families with recipients of UCRP disability or in Medicare due to disability are not eligible for this program.” FAQ #19 further states that UCRP disability recipients remain in UC group coverage even if they move out of California.

UCnet’s Official Page Confirms the Disability Exclusion: UCnet’s Medicare Coordinator Program page states: “You are not eligible for the Medicare Coordinator program if you or any covered family members are under the age of 65, even if the covered individuals are eligible for Medicare due to a health condition or disability.” (ucnet.universityofcalifornia.edu — Medicare Coordinator Program.)

UC’s Own Representative Contradicted UC’s Own Published Rules: On November 17, 2025, on a recorded speakerphone call, a UC representative told Harold that because he lives in Arizona, he was required to transfer to Via Benefits. This statement is contradicted by every UC source that addresses disability recipients. Via Benefits FAQ #19 states that UCRP disability recipients remain in UC group coverage regardless of state of residence. Via Benefits FAQ #2 states that UCRP disability recipients are “not eligible for this program.” UCnet’s official page confirms the disability exclusion. UC High Option — the plan Harold was enrolled in — is listed as available “Nationwide” on UC’s own plan comparison materials. (See Chapter 04: Six Recorded Calls Capture UC Agents Admitting Coverage Failures on Tape.)

Via Benefits’ Own Administrator Confirmed Harold’s Ineligibility: On or about January 29, 2026, Joshua Lewis, an administrator of the Via Benefits program, called Harold. Lewis confirmed that Harold was ineligible for the Via Benefits program due to his disability rating. Lewis stated he would send a note or letter to the UC system advising that Harold’s application to transfer to Via Benefits would not be accepted because of his ineligibility. Lewis agreed that it “made no sense” for someone with advanced cancer to opt out of UC Blue Cross High Option Medicare and replace it with a $4,000/year stipend for a lesser plan. Harold specifically directed Lewis not to enroll him in Via Benefits because it would seriously jeopardize his quality of healthcare coverage and possibly his medical recovery outcome.

The Contradiction: UC’s own RASC told Harold he would be automatically transitioned to UC Medicare PPO under Anthem Blue Cross. UC’s own published materials confirmed this automatic path with no mention of Via Benefits. Via Benefits’ own eligibility rules exclude UCRP disability recipients. UCnet’s official page confirms the exclusion. Yet UC’s own representative told Harold he was required to transfer to Via Benefits, and Via Benefits began contacting Harold about enrollment in a program Harold was explicitly ineligible for — 57 days after UC’s own RASC webinar described a completely different transition path. Via Benefits’ own administrator then confirmed Harold’s ineligibility, creating a sixth institutional voice contradicting the fifth. UC cannot simultaneously tell Harold he “will transition” to Blue Cross Medicare PPO and that he “must transfer” to Via Benefits. Both are UC’s own published positions. Both cannot be true.

This is now a sixth distinct institutional position on Harold’s coverage path, in addition to the five mutually exclusive classifications of his employment status documented in Contradictions 1 through 9:

(1) UCLA PD (2023): “medically separated” — receiving DDI, not retired.

(2) UC RASC (2015–present): “Retiree” — Distribution Codes 2/7, taxable income, premiums deducted.

(3) UCLA PD (2002, 2013): “RETIRED” — stamped on two CCW permits signed by the Chief of Police.

(4) UCOP Health & Welfare Administration (Herz, 2009–2010): “retiree on disability” — a hybrid classification.

(5) UC Benefits (Ida Fong, 2021): “disabled” — but assigned to the wrong family member (Max Harold).

(6) UC RASC Webinar (May 2025): “will transition to UC Medicare PPO” — but UC representative (November 2025): “must transfer to Via Benefits” — but Via Benefits (January 2026): “not eligible.”

II. UC’S OWN CONDUCT CONSTITUTES THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE OF SETTLEMENT TERMS

UC RASC has stated it has no record of Harold’s tort lawsuit, workers’ compensation case, or settlement agreement. Harold’s former attorneys retired and their firms have no records. The adjusting company representative stated she “knew nothing about a settlement agreement.”

As documented in Contradiction 3, the absence of these records coincides with twenty-five publicly disclosed data breaches affecting UC, UCLA, and Anthem Blue Cross systems between 2005 and 2026, including three breaches active during the 2014–2015 period when multiple UC entities reported having no records: the Anthem breach of 78.8 million records (February 2014–January 2015), the UCLA Health System breach of 4.5 million records (September 2014–May 2015), and the Premera Blue Cross breach of 10.4 million records (May 2014–March 2015). UC employee Ida Fong further confirmed in February 2021 that UC records had been lost during internal computer system upgrades. (See Chapter 05: 25 Data Breaches Exposed the Systems That Were Supposed to Protect Harold’s Records.)

However, UC’s own conduct from 2003 through 2015 — a period of twelve consecutive years — constitutes the best available evidence of the settlement terms, because UC complied with every term for over a decade:

Settlement Term	UC’s Conduct (2003–2015)	Documentary Evidence
Tax-free Disability Income	UC paid Code 3 (Disability) income for 12+ years	1099-R forms 2010–2014 (Code 3)
Paid health insurance for family	UC paid premiums; no deductions from disability payment	Pre-2015 pay stubs; Ida Fong Statement of Facts
Concealed weapons permit	Two CCW permits issued (2002, 2013); 11+ years of range qualifications	20020906_CCW_Issued; 20130829_UCLA_PD_CCW_Issued
Lump sum payment ($10,000)	Payment received	Settlement records (UC claims no record)

The pattern of twelve years of full compliance with every stated settlement term, followed by a cessation of compliance coinciding with documented UC data system issues, is itself evidence of the settlement’s existence and terms. UC cannot lose or destroy the settlement file and then assert the settlement did not exist or did not contain the terms that UC itself honored for over a decade.

Additionally, your own August 25, 2023 letter — by classifying me as “medically separated” receiving “Duty Disability Income” — independently corroborates that Harold’s status originated from a workplace injury and workers’ compensation proceeding. The Octagon Risk Services letter of August 8, 2001 further corroborates the permanent disability determination. These documents, combined with UC’s twelve years of conduct, establish the settlement terms through multiple independent sources.

III. REQUIRED AUDIT AND ADMINISTRATIVE RECONCILIATION

The contradictions documented above are not matters that can be resolved by a single departmental file review. They involve conflicts between UCLA PD records, UC RASC records, UC tax filings (1099-R), UC benefits enrollment systems, UC workers’ compensation records, and UC’s own published Medicare transition materials — maintained by different UC entities across different systems.

The documented contradictions require the following:

A. Forwarding for Internal Audit: That UCLA PD forward this chapter and the underlying file to the UC Office of the President — Ethics, Compliance & Audit Services for an internal audit of the classification contradictions identified herein. Under the UC Internal Audit Charter (approved by the Regents), “Anyone can request an audit by calling the Internal Audit Office” (UC Irvine IAS FAQ; UC Merced IAS FAQ; systemwide practice). The Charter mandates that Internal Audit ensure that “financial and operational information is accurate, reliable, and timely” and that “employee’s actions are in compliance with policies, standards, procedures, and applicable laws and regulations.”

Under the California Constitution, Article XVI, § 17, the Regents bear “sole and exclusive fiduciary responsibility” to “administer the system in a manner that will assure prompt delivery of benefits and related services to the participants and their beneficiaries,” acting with “care, skill, prudence, and diligence.” The contradictions documented in this chapter — six mutually exclusive classifications and coverage positions, unexplained 1099-R code changes, and three UCOP departments that could not locate a settlement honored for twelve consecutive years — constitute a prima facie failure of that fiduciary standard.

B. Records Reconciliation: That UC Retirement Administration Service Center (RASC) be directed to reconcile its classification of Harold as a Retiree (effective June 1, 2015, Distribution Codes 2/7) with UCLA PD’s classification of Harold as “medically separated” receiving “Duty Disability Income.” One classification must yield to the other.

C. Determination of Insurance Responsibility: That the reconciliation include a determination of whether UC is responsible for paying Harold’s medical insurance premiums — either under the original settlement terms (paid insurance for life), under the DDI framework (if Harold remains classified as disabled), or under the verbal assurances made by “At Your Service” representatives during the 2015 conversion.

D. Written Response: A written response within thirty (30) days identifying: (1) which UC entity is responsible for reconciling these records; (2) what classification UC adopts as the authoritative status; and (3) the financial consequences of that classification, including any required adjustments to 1099-R filings, premium deductions, or CCW eligibility.

This audit demand is made pursuant to UC’s mandatory compliance and review obligations under the following authorities, each of which independently creates an obligation to investigate, reconcile, or audit the contradictions documented above:

1. California Constitution, Article XVI, § 17 — Fiduciary Duty

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=CONS&article=XVI

The Regents hold “sole and exclusive fiduciary responsibility over the assets of the public pension or retirement system” and “sole and exclusive responsibility to administer the system in a manner that will assure prompt delivery of benefits and related services to the participants and their beneficiaries.” Members of the retirement board must “discharge their duties with respect to the system with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiar with these matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims.” The assets of the system are “trust funds” held “for the exclusive purposes of providing benefits to participants in the pension or retirement system and their beneficiaries.”

2. Regents Policy 7600: Policy on University of California Retirement System

https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/governance/policies/7600.html

The UCRS is “created and maintained for [the] exclusive benefit” of eligible employees and beneficiaries and “is intended to be permanent and ongoing.” The President of the University serves as Plan Administrator. The contradictions documented in this chapter demonstrate a failure to administer Harold’s benefits in the manner required by this policy.

3. University of California Internal Audit Charter (Regents-Approved)

https://www.ucop.edu/ethics-compliance-audit-services/audit/internal-audit-charter.html

Internal Audit is “authorized to have full, free and unrestricted access to information it deems necessary to perform audit, consulting/advisory services, and investigation projects.” The scope of IA work includes ensuring: “Financial and operational information is accurate, reliable, and timely,” “Employee’s actions are in compliance with policies, standards, procedures, and applicable laws and regulations,” and “Resources are acquired economically, used efficiently, and adequately protected.” UC Irvine and UC Merced Internal Audit Services both confirm: “Anyone can request an audit by calling the Internal Audit Office.”

4. California Whistleblower Protection Act, Government Code §§ 8547–8547.12

https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2009/gov/8547-8547.12.html

Government Code § 8547.2 defines “improper governmental activity” to include “any activity by the University of California or by an employee, including an officer or faculty member.” This encompasses “any violation of state or federal law,” “significant waste or misuse of state resources, including funds, property, and employee time,” and “gross misconduct, incompetence, or inefficiency.” The contradictions documented in this chapter — including potential IRS reporting violations across nine tax years, unsupported premium deductions, and the inability of multiple UC entities to locate legally required records — fall squarely within this statutory definition.

5. UC Whistleblower Policy — Reporting and Investigating Suspected Improper Governmental Activities

https://policy.ucop.edu/doc/1100171/Whistleblower

UC’s own implementing policy requires investigation of all credible reports of improper governmental activity. “Not to [investigate] would, in and of itself, be an Improper Governmental Activity.” (UC Agriculture & Natural Resources, Whistleblower FAQ.)

6. UC Whistleblower Protection Policy (Non-Retaliation)

https://policy.ucop.edu/doc/1100563/WPP

Consistent with Government Code § 8547.10, UC employees “are free to report suspected Improper Governmental Activity or conditions that significantly threaten the health or safety of employees or the public without fear of retribution.”

7. Regents Policy 7503: Policy on Compliance with State Audits

https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/governance/policies/7503.html

UC Regents, Officers, and University employees “shall not, directly or indirectly use or attempt to use the official authority or influence of the employee for the purpose of intimidating, threatening, coercing, commanding, or attempting to intimidate, threaten, coerce, or command any person for the purpose of interfering with the right of that person to make a good faith communication to the State Auditor that discloses or demonstrates an intention to disclose information that may evidence improper governmental activity.”

8. Regents Compliance and Audit Committee Charter (Bylaw 23.5; Appendix B)

https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/governance/committee%20charters/appendix-b.html

The Committee provides “strategic direction and oversight” on matters pertaining to “the quality and integrity of the University’s financial reporting systems and controls” and “the University’s commitment to meeting all applicable legal, regulatory and policy requirements.” Under Regents Bylaw 23.5, the Chief Compliance and Audit Officer is required to report to the Board “any significant concerns regarding the Office of the President that could result in substantial financial, reputational or other harm to the University.”

Material errors in benefits classification, unsupported pension deductions, conflicting tax filings, and failures to maintain or reconcile eligibility records fall squarely within these authorities.

Note Regarding Due Process: UCLA PD Policy 209, Section 209.7, provides that denial of a CCW requires written notice sent by first class mail, a fifteen-day hearing period, and a three-member hearing board. Harold’s CCW denial was communicated via email. Harold received no written notice by first class mail, was afforded no fifteen-day hearing period, and no three-member hearing board was convened. All rights under Policy 209.7 are reserved.

IV. CONTEXT (FOR COMPLETENESS)

Harold’s employment history with UCLA and the Regents has previously been the subject of formal legal proceedings and public reporting, including Harold v. The Regents of the University of California, which was covered by the Los Angeles Times:

Los Angeles Times (Feb. 25, 1993):

latimes.com — Feb. 25, 1993

Los Angeles Times (April 24, 1994, additional contemporaneous coverage):

latimes.com — April 24, 1994

Harold also filed and prevailed in a federal FLSA lawsuit on behalf of UC police officers for compensatory overtime under the Garcia case, resulting in over $1,000,000 in back pay to officers system-wide.

Harold’s case is also documented in UCLA’s institutional history archive, History of Racism and the Quest for Racial Justice at UCLA (Luskin Center):

luskincenter.history.ucla.edu — History of Racism at UCLA

Additionally, the Jacobs v. Regents case that you attached to your denial letter names the Federated University Police Officers Association (FUPOA) as a plaintiff. Harold is the founding president of FUPOA.

These references are provided solely for institutional context and to confirm that this documentation is submitted through established, protected administrative channels and in good faith.

V. NOTE REGARDING PRIOR UNANSWERED AUDIT REQUEST

On November 9, 2021, Harold’s attorney, Edgar A. Saenz, submitted a formal audit and reconciliation request addressed to Alexander Bustamante, Senior Vice President and Chief Compliance & Audit Officer, UC Office of the President. That request was sent by both certified mail and email (Gmail delivery confirmed November 9, 2021, 3:10 PM). (Documents: 20211109_Edgar_Gmail_C_A_HAROLD_LTR_RE_PERSONNEL_STATUS_REVIEW; 20211109_Edgar_Ltr_to_Bustamante_UC_2021_11_09.) (See Chapter 09: Second Formal Demand After Four Years of Silence — Produce the Records or Explain Their Absence.)

That request has remained unanswered for over four years.

Harold is also scheduled for cancer surgery in February 2026. Any unresolved status contradictions that affect Harold’s medical coverage, insurance continuity, or benefits classification during this period could jeopardize Harold’s scheduled surgery, continuity and quality of care, and Harold’s health.

VI. SUMMARY

The August 25, 2023 determination was based on the documents available to Lieutenant Chobanian at the time. This chapter does not question his good faith or his reading of the documents available to you. The problem is that the documents available to him appear to have been incomplete. That determination was based on a March 1, 1996 designation that was superseded by a June 1, 2015 conversion to Retirement Income — a conversion initiated and documented by UC’s own retirement system, confirmed by nine consecutive years of retirement-coded 1099-R forms, and reflected in ongoing premium deductions that are inconsistent with DDI status.

The policies and case law cited in the August 25, 2023 determination — the Gold Book, the Jacobs decision — were designed to address officers who remain on Duty Disability Income indefinitely without electing to retire. Those officers are technically still on the department’s books, still accruing service credit, still being paid from the department’s operating budget. That framework does not describe Harold’s current status. Harold’s payments come from the UCRP retirement fund. Harold is not accruing service credit. Harold has not been receiving DDI since June 1, 2015.

The documented contradictions require that the relevant UC entities sit down with each other’s records and reconcile them. The answer to every question in this chapter already exists somewhere in UC’s own systems.

Evidence Index (Referenced Documents):

1. 20230825_Gmail_RE_CCW_UCLA_Police_Department_Active_Retiree_List (Chobanian denial and full email exchange)

2. 20020906_CCW_Issued (CCW Permit #1, stamped “RETIRED”)

3. 20130829_UCLA_PD_CCW_Issued (CCW Permit #2, “Retired in good standing”)

4. 20010808_Octagon_Risk_Services_Letter (Permanent Disability Determination)

5. 20150402_UCLA_Retirement_Estimator_sent_to_Ida (Retirement/Cashout Date: 06/01/2015)

6. 20150302_UC_Retirement_Center_Letter (Conversion offer from Disability to Retirement Income)

7. 1099-R Forms, Tax Years 2010–2024 (showing Code 3 → Code 2 → Code 7 transition)

8. 20211109_Edgar_Ltr_to_Bustamante_UC_2021_11_09 (Prior unanswered audit request)

9. UCLA PD Policy 209 (Lexipol, 2022)

10. UC Gold Book Policy GO 21-02, Section 1700.1

11. Jacobs v. The Regents of the University of California (2017) 2d Dist., Case No. B270641

12. CCW Range Qualification Emails (2011–2017)

13. 20090929_Thomas_Herz_re_SSA_Yahoo_Mail_Re_SSA_determination (Herz initial SSA request, September 29, 2009)

14. 20100122_Thomas_Herz_re_SSA_Yahoo_Mail_Re_documents_for_compliance (Herz SSA follow-up, January 22, 2010)

15. 20100308_Thomas_Herz_re_SSA_Yahoo_Mail_Fw_document (Full March 8–29, 2010 exchange — settlement denial, “retirees on disability” classification, CC to UCLA Benefits Office)

16. 20100406_Thomas_Herz_SSA_application_Yahoo_Mail_Re_documentation (Herz threat of offset fee and termination of UC medical coverage, April 6, 2010)

17. 20100608_Thomas_Herz_Yahoo_Mail_Re_SSA_letter (Herz SSA follow-up; Harold reports SSA ineligibility due to earnings, June 8, 2010)

18. 20110131_cah_to_chief_re_ccw_Yahoo_Mail_CCW_Renewal (Harold to Chief Herren requesting CCW renewal, January 31, 2011)