This evidentiary record constitutes a formal demand for audit pursuant to California Government Code § 8546.7, which provides that every contract involving expenditure of public funds exceeding $10,000 “shall be subject to the examination and audit of the California State Auditor.” The Legislature specifically intended this provision to apply to the Regents of the University of California. The contracts at issue — including UC’s systemwide agreements with Anthem Blue Cross, Accolade, and Via Benefits (Willis Towers Watson) — each involve public fund expenditures far exceeding this threshold.
The University of California constitutes a “public trust” under California Constitution, Article IX, Section 9. As a self-insured employer, UC is bound by Cal. Code Regs. Title 8, § 15400.2: claim files where future benefits may be payable “shall not” be destroyed.
A prior formal audit request was submitted November 9, 2021, to Chief Compliance & Audit Officer Alexander Bustamante. UC has never responded. This is the second such demand.
EVIDENTIARY PACKAGE — CHAPTERS FILED AND PENDING
| CH | TITLE | STATUS |
|---|---|---|
| 00 | Introduction & Navigation Roadmap | Filed Feb. 10, 2026 |
| 01 | The Unqualified Benefits Transfer | Filed Feb. 10, 2026 |
| 02 | The Right to Rescind the Via Benefits Enrollment | Filed Feb. 10, 2026 |
| 03 | Four UC Systems Can't Agree on Coverage | Filed Feb. 10, 2026 |
| 04 | Six Recorded Calls Capture UC Agents Admitting Coverage Failures on Tape | Filed Feb. 11, 2026 |
| 05 | 25 Data Breaches Exposed the Systems That Were Supposed to Protect Harold's Records | Filed Feb. 11, 2026 |
| 06 | 10 Contradictions UC Cannot Reconcile | Filed Feb. 11, 2026 |
| 07 | UC's Own Tax Filings Expose the Switch from Disability | Pending |
| 08 | The Laws UC Violated: Constructive Notice, Breach of Contract & Whistleblower Retaliation | Filed Feb. 19, 2026 |
| 09 | The Invalid Election: How UC's Own Federal Tax Filings Prove the 2015 Conversion Was Coerced | Pending |
| 10 | Master Evidence Index and Court Records | Pending |
| 11 | Who Is Watching — Regulatory Oversight Matrix | Pending |
| 12 | The Case Against Competence | Filed Feb. 19, 2026 |
| 13 | The CCW Evidence Compendium | Pending |
| 14 | Demand to Stop Medical Coverage Transfers | Pending |
| 15 | The Civil Rights Case | Pending |
NOTICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE AND STATEMENT OF INTENT
February 19, 2026
Originally Prepared for Janine, UCRP Retirement Services in Response to
UC-Initiated Telephone Contact with Harold on February 11, 2026
On February 8, 2026, Charles A. Harold, Jr. (Harold) submitted a formal demand to Captain Jeff Chobanian, UCLA Police Department, Badge #307, via electronic mail to [email protected]. The demand included a formal records request pursuant to the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (Government Code §§ 3305, 3306, 3306.5) and Penal Code § 832.8, requesting production of eight categories of records identified as items (a) through (h). The demand established a compliance deadline of February 18, 2026.
The February 8, 2026 demand letter was copied to:
UCLA Chief of Police Craig Valenzuela ([email protected]; [email protected])
UC Retirement Administration Service Center (RASC), UCRAYS, via fax: 1-800-792-5178
Federated University Police Officers’ Association (FUPOA), [email protected]
Daily Bruin ([email protected]; [email protected])
UCLA Luskin Center for History and Policy, Professors Aomar Boum, Eddie Cole, David N. Myers ([email protected])
On February 10, 2026, two days after receiving the formal demand and eight days before the compliance deadline, Captain Chobanian responded: “Based on your last email, I will no longer communicate with you since you have threatened legal action against me.” Captain Chobanian’s stated refusal to communicate does not relieve the UCLA Police Department of its statutory obligation to produce the requested records under Government Code § 3306.5 and Penal Code § 832.8.
As of February 19, 2026, the compliance deadline of February 18, 2026 has passed. No response has been received from Captain Chobanian, Chief of Police Craig Valenzuela, or any other UC recipient or CC’d party.
The formal records requests at items (a) through (h) remain outstanding and unanswered.
This document — Chapter 12 of the evidentiary package titled Schrödinger’s UC Retiree: — constitutes the factual and legal foundation for a petition pursuant to California Labor Code § 132a, to be filed with the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. The petition is filed separately.
Captain Chobanian has removed himself from this process. The statutory obligations, however, remain.
On or about February 11, 2026, at approximately 3:07 pm Arizona time, “Janine” (sp) at UCRP Retirement Services contacted me from 510-987-0480 to discuss why I believed I was ineligible for the Via Benefits Medicare Coordinator Program.
The main reason I stated was I did not want it, I never wanted it, I was automatically enrolled in the Blue Cross supplemental plan and I opted in for the UC High Option Plan and the Navitus drug plan, then I was told by another UC rep that I was required to enroll in the Via Benefits plan for no other reason than I lived out of state. This requirement was discussed with me and my wife on the documented phone call in the UC records.
This document provides eight independently documented reasons, each supported by federal law, state law, published case law, UC’s own published policies, or UC’s own administrative records. Every quotation below is taken verbatim from UC’s own published documents, and a clickable hyperlink to the source is provided so the reader may verify each statement. This chapter incorporates evidence from Chapters 01–11 of the Schrödinger’s UC Retiree evidentiary package and presents it in a consolidated format that demonstrates why the Via Benefits transfer cannot proceed under UC’s own rules.
__________________________________________________________________________________
DEFINITIONS
The following definitions are provided so the reader can clearly understand the specific Medicare coverage types, UC-specific administrative terms, law enforcement terms, and legal terms referenced throughout this document.
MEDICARE COVERAGE TYPES
Medicare Part A — Hospital insurance. Covers inpatient hospital stays, skilled nursing facility care, hospice care, and some home health care.
Medicare Part B — Medical insurance. Covers doctor visits, outpatient care, preventive services, durable medical equipment, and some home health care.
Medicare Part D — Prescription drug coverage. Harold’s Navitus enrollment falls under this category.
Medigap (Medicare Supplement) — A private insurance policy that pays costs Original Medicare does not cover, including deductibles, copayments, and coinsurance. Medigap plans are federally regulated under 42 U.S.C. § 1395ss. They are guaranteed renewable under federal law and operate nationwide with no geographic service area restrictions. This is what Harold’s UC High Option Supplement to Medicare plan is.
Medicare Advantage (Medicare Part C) — An alternative to Original Medicare where a private insurer provides Part A and Part B benefits (and often Part D) through a managed care network. Medicare Advantage plans are geographically restricted to defined service areas. This is NOT what Harold has.
Key Distinction: The difference between Medigap and Medicare Advantage is central to this document. Medigap plans operate nationwide under federal law. Medicare Advantage plans are restricted to geographic service areas. If UC’s representatives applied Medicare Advantage geographic restrictions to Harold’s Medigap plan, that application was factually and legally incorrect.
UC-SPECIFIC TERMS
UCRP — University of California Retirement Plan. The retirement benefits plan for UC employees, established by the Regents under their constitutional authority (Cal. Const., art. IX, § 9). Under the UCRP, “Retirement” and “Disability” are separate and mutually exclusive classifications.
UCRAYS — UC Retirement At Your Service. The online portal at retirementatyourservice.ucop.edu where retirees and disability recipients view benefits, enrollment, and payment information.
RASC — Retirement Administration Service Center. UC’s call center for retirement and benefits questions, reached at 510-987-0480.
UCnet — UC’s official benefits information website at ucnet.universityofcalifornia.edu. Contains published policies, plan descriptions, and enrollment information.
UBEN 100 — UC’s Retiree Continuation, Enrollment or Change form. Requires the retiree’s signature, confirming that enrollment changes are voluntary and consent-based.
UBEN 101 — UC’s Retiree Health Coverage Election form. Also requires the retiree’s signature.
UBEN 123 — UC’s prescription drug enrollment form.
UC High Option Supplement to Medicare — Harold’s current medical plan. A Medigap policy administered by Blue Cross of California, with Medicare coordination. Federally classified as “Other Insurance” by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
Via Benefits — A division of Willis Towers Watson that administers UC’s Medicare Coordinator Program for out-of-state retirees. Via Benefits is the third-party administrator UC selected and contracted.
Medicare Coordinator Program (MCP) — UC’s program, administered by Via Benefits, that transitions eligible out-of-state Medicare retirees from UC group coverage to individual Medicare plans paired with a Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA).
HRA (Health Reimbursement Arrangement) — A UC-funded account (up to $4,000/year in 2026) provided through Via Benefits to reimburse Medicare plan premiums and out-of-pocket medical costs.
UCRP Disability Income — Monthly payments to UC employees who become permanently disabled during employment. Under the UCRP, a “Disabled Member” is “a former Active Member who is eligible for and receives Disability Income.” Recipients are explicitly excluded from the Via Benefits program in at least five UC-published documents.
UCRP Duty Disability Income (DDI) — A specific benefit under UCRP Article 8 for members with Safety Benefits (including peace officers) who are “prevented from performing the duties of such Member’s present position, because of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment of permanent and extended and uncertain duration … arising out of and in the course of duty.” DDI continues until the member is no longer disabled or elects to retire. DDI is tax-exempt. DDI recipients continue to accrue service credit while receiving benefits.
Retired Member (UCRP definition) — Under the UCRP, a “Retired Member” is “a former Active, Inactive, or Disabled Member who … is receiving Retirement Income.” This is a separate and mutually exclusive classification from “Disabled Member.” A person may convert from Disabled to Retired only by making an affirmative election to do so.
Medically Separated — The employment status designation applied to UC employees whose employment ends due to a permanent disability. Lt. Chobanian of UCLA PD confirmed in writing on August 25, 2023, that Harold’s status was “designated as medically separated on March 1, 1996.”
CCW AND LAW ENFORCEMENT TERMS
CCW (Carry Concealed Weapon) — A permit or endorsement authorizing a qualified individual to carry a concealed firearm. For retired peace officers, this endorsement is stamped on the retiree identification card issued by the officer’s former agency.
LEOSA (Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act) — Federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 926C, that allows qualified retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms nationwide. Requires either 10 years of aggregate law enforcement service or separation due to a service-connected disability after completing any applicable probationary period.
Honorably Retired (Penal Code § 16690) — California law defines an “honorably retired” peace officer as “any peace officer who has qualified for, and has accepted, a service or disability retirement.” This is the statutory prerequisite for a retired officer identification card and CCW endorsement under Penal Code §§ 25455, 26300, and 26305.
Gold Book — The University of California Universitywide Police Policies and Administrative Procedures. The Gold Book, General Order 21-02 (GO 21-02), Section 1700.1(b)(1), states: “An officer receiving duty disability income has not retired or separated from the University of California and is therefore not eligible for a retiree identification card or retiree CCW privileges and is not considered a ‘qualified retired and separated peace officer.’”
Policy 209 — UCLA Police Department Policy 209, “Retiree Concealed Firearms,” published by Lexipol LLC (2022). Section 209.4(a) states: “honorably retired includes all peace officers who have qualified for, and accepted, a service or disability retirement. It shall not include any officer who retires in lieu of termination.”
FUPOA — Federated University Police Officers’ Association. The exclusive bargaining representative for nonsupervisory peace officers of the University of California, representing more than 250 members. Harold is the founding president of FUPOA. FUPOA was a named plaintiff in Jacobs et al. v. The Regents of the University of California (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 1, the case Lt. Chobanian cited to deny Harold’s CCW.
UCPD — University of California Police Department. Harold served as a sworn peace officer with UCPD (UCLA), Badge #341, from 1989 to 1996 (with prior service at San Gabriel PD 1983–1985 and Culver City PD 1985–1988).
P.O.S.T. — Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. The California state agency that sets minimum selection and training standards for California law enforcement. Harold’s P.O.S.T. records verify his law enforcement service history.
LEGAL TERMS
Guaranteed Renewable — A federal protection under 42 U.S.C. § 1395ss(q)(1) requiring that Medigap policies cannot be cancelled for any reason other than nonpayment of premium or material misrepresentation.
Rescission — The legal unwinding of a contract. Under California Civil Code § 1689(b)(1), a party may rescind a contract if consent was obtained through mistake, fraud, or undue influence.
Jacobs et al. v. The Regents of the University of California — Published decision of the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two, Case No. B268758 (filed May 30, 2017; certified for publication June 27, 2017). This case held that under the UCRP, “there is no such thing as ‘disability retirement.’ Members are either retired or disabled.” The Court further held that “Disabled Members receiving DDI: (1) are not retired; (2) do not receive Retirement Income; and (3) can elect to retire when eligible, but are never required to do so.” Lt. Chobanian of UCLA PD attached this case to his August 25, 2023 email denying Harold’s CCW.
Section 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 794) — Federal law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. UC receives billions in federal funding annually. Section 504 applies to “fringe benefits” including health insurance, and uses the broader standard of “otherwise qualified individual” rather than ADA Title I’s “qualified individual.”
ADA Title I (42 U.S.C. § 12112) — Federal law prohibiting disability discrimination in employment, including fringe benefits. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Stanley v. City of Sanford (2025) that retirees can enforce Title I if they “plead and prove they were both disabled and ‘qualified’ when their employer adopted a discriminatory retirement-benefits policy.” Harold’s disability arose in 1996 during active employment; his settlement was in 2003 while the employment relationship existed.
California FEHA (Government Code § 12940) — The California Fair Employment and Housing Act. Prohibits disability discrimination in the “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,” which California courts interpret to include post-employment fringe benefits such as retiree health insurance.
________________________________________________________________________________
INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT: UCLA’S OWN CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CONFIRMS THE RECORD-KEEPING SYSTEMS WERE UNRELIABLE DURING THE ENTIRE RELEVANT PERIOD
On February 13, 2026, the Daily Bruin published an interview with UCLA Chief Financial Officer Stephen Agostini, who had overseen UCLA’s $11-billion budget since May 2024. Agostini stated that the annual financial reports UCLA posted on its website since 2002 are “erroneous and unaudited,” that the university has a $425 million annual structural deficit caused by “financial management flaws and failures” predating his arrival, and that a failed attempt to modernize UCLA’s financial systems cost approximately $150 million and was subsequently paused.
Source: Daily Bruin, “Financial mismanagement contributed to $425 million annual deficit, UCLA CFO says,” published February 13, 2026. Available at: dailybruin.com/2026/02/13/financial-mismanagement-contributed-to-425-million-annual-deficit-ucla-cfo-says
On Tuesday, February 17, 2026, Chancellor Julio Frenk fired Agostini, effective immediately. UCLA Vice Chancellor for Strategic Communications Mary Osako stated that “allegations suggesting long-term financial mismanagement were unfounded.” The Los Angeles Times reported that a source with knowledge of the situation stated the firing was tied to Agostini’s public statements, which were made without the Chancellor’s approval.
Source: Los Angeles Times, “UCLA fires top finance officer, saying he made inaccurate claims about campus budget,” published February 18, 2026.
Agostini’s termination occurred on February 17, 2026 — one day before the February 18, 2026 deadline Harold established for Captain Chobanian’s records production under Government Code § 3306.5. Both deadlines passed without compliance.
Three Independent Lines of Evidence Converge on the Same Institutional Systems During the Same Time Period
Three independent sources — none of whom were communicating with each other, and none of whom were aware of the others’ findings — have identified the same category of institutional failure affecting the same record-keeping systems during overlapping time periods:
Line 1: UCLA’s Chief Financial Officer (February 2026). Stephen Agostini stated publicly that UCLA’s annual financial reports posted on its website since 2002 are “erroneous and unaudited.” He further stated that a failed technology upgrade to modernize UCLA’s financial systems cost approximately $150 million and was paused. The “since 2002” window encompasses the entire period of Harold’s records disputes (2003–present), including the 2014–2015 reclassification of his disability income to retirement income, the initiation of insurance premium deductions, and the disappearance of his workers’ compensation settlement records.
Line 2: UC Benefits Employee Ida Fong (February–March 2021). On March 18, 2021, at 10:15 AM, during a telephone call lasting 16 minutes and 3 seconds from her office number (510-987-0665), Ida Fong of UC Benefits stated that “when UC upgraded their computer systems several years ago, old records were lost and not recovered” and that she could not look up any information about Harold’s original workers’ compensation case and disability status. Three weeks earlier, on February 24, 2021, Ms. Fong had contacted Harold to report that his son Max was listed as “disabled” in UC’s system. Max has never been disabled. Harold is the one with the documented permanent disability determination. (See Chapter 04, Call #2; Chapter 06, Contradiction #4.)
Agostini’s “failed technology upgrade” and Fong’s “records lost during computer system upgrades” describe the same institutional event from two independent vantage points — one from the executive suite, one from the benefits processing floor.
Line 3: Twenty-Five Documented Data Breaches (2005–2026). Chapter 05 of this evidentiary package documents 25 data breach incidents affecting UC/UCLA and Anthem Blue Cross systems between October 2005 and January 2026. Of these, 17 (68%) show documented correlation to contemporaneous events affecting Harold’s employment records, benefits status, or data integrity. The largest single breach — the Anthem Inc. nation-state cyberattack (Breach #7, February 2014–January 2015) — compromised 78.8 million records explicitly including “employment information and income data” and occurred during the exact window when Harold’s disability status was reclassified and his settlement records disappeared. All 25 documented breaches fall within the “since 2002” window that Agostini identified as the period of “erroneous and unaudited” financial reporting.
Chronological Convergence of the Three Independent Lines of Evidence
The following table presents a side-by-side chronological alignment of events affecting Harold’s records (Column 2), documented data breaches and system failures affecting UC/Anthem systems (Column 3), and the timeframe UCLA’s own CFO identified as the period of “erroneous and unaudited” institutional reporting (Column 4). Rose-shaded rows indicate documented correlation. The reader is invited to draw their own conclusions from the temporal alignment of these independently documented events.
| Year | What Happened to Harold’s Records | What Happened to UC/Anthem Data Systems | Agostini Window (Since 2002) |
| 2002 | Settlement honored. Disability income paid correctly, tax-free. | — | “Erroneous and unaudited” period begins per Agostini |
| 2003 | Workers’ comp settles. $3,075.98/month tax-free. UC pays insurance premiums. | Anthem is UC’s contracted health insurer for employees and retirees. | Within Agostini window |
| 2005–2006 | Records appear intact. Settlement honored. | Breach #1: UCLA database. 800,000 records. Undetected 13 months. | Within Agostini window |
| ~2014 | Third-party adjuster contacts Harold. States she “knew nothing about a lawsuit or worker’s comp settlement.” | Breach #7: Anthem mega-breach. 78.8M records including “employment information and income data.” Breach #8: UCLA Health. 4.5M records. | Within Agostini window |
| Early 2015 | UC “At Your Service” states it has NO RECORDS of Harold’s workers’ comp case or settlement. Proposes converting disability to retirement. | Anthem breach discovered Jan 27, 2015. Four major breaches overlap this exact window. | Within Agostini window |
| 2015 | Disability income converted to taxable retirement. UC begins deducting insurance premiums. Monthly drops from ~$3,000 tax-free to ~$1,300 taxable. | Multiple breach investigations ongoing. Failed $150M technology upgrade underway. | Within Agostini window |
| 2021 | Ida Fong admits records “lost during computer system upgrades.” Son Max erroneously coded as disabled. Seven Anthem breaches in one year. | Breaches #12–19: UC Accellion breach (547,000+) plus seven separate Anthem incidents. | Within Agostini window |
| 2026 | Chobanian: “medically separated.” RASC: “retiree.” IRS: taxable retirement. Via Benefits: ineligible. Four systems, four answers. | UCLA CFO states financial reports since 2002 “erroneous and unaudited.” CFO fired Feb. 17, 2026. | Agostini confirms the entire window. |
Statutory and Regulatory Basis for Independent External Audit
The convergence of these three independent lines of evidence on the same institutional systems during the same time period establishes the factual basis for an independent audit conducted by authorities external to the University of California, rather than by UC’s own internal compliance office, which received a formal audit request on November 9, 2021, and has never responded. The following authorities have statutory jurisdiction:
1. California State Auditor (Government Code §§ 8545.2, 8546.1, 8546.7). The California State Auditor has, by statute, “full access to all records, accounts, correspondence, property, and other files of any publicly created entity.” (Gov. Code § 8545.2(a).) Section 8546.7 specifically provides that contracts involving the expenditure of public funds exceeding $10,000 “shall be subject to the examination and audit of the California State Auditor.” The Legislature specifically intended this provision to apply to the Regents of the University of California. UC’s contracts with Anthem Blue Cross, Blue Shield of California, Accolade, Via Benefits (Willis Towers Watson), and Conduent each involve expenditures far exceeding the $10,000 threshold. UC’s own policy (issued November 17, 2017) instructs all University employees to “cooperate fully with all lawful requests from the CSA” and to “provide timely, candid and complete responses.” Audit requests are submitted through a member of the California Legislature to the Joint Legislative Audit Committee (JLAC), a 14-member bipartisan committee that reviews, approves, and prioritizes audits conducted by the State Auditor. (Gov. Code § 8546.1(b).)
2. California State Auditor — Whistleblower Hotline (Government Code § 8547 et seq.). The California Whistleblower Protection Act authorizes the State Auditor to receive complaints from state employees and members of the public reporting “improper governmental activity,” defined as any action that violates law, is economically wasteful, or involves gross misconduct, incompetence, or inefficiency. (Gov. Code § 8547.2.) Complaints may be filed by telephone at 1-800-952-5665, online at www.auditor.ca.gov/hotline, or by mail to: Investigations, California State Auditor, P.O. Box 1019, Sacramento, CA 95812.
3. California State Controller (Government Code § 12410). The State Controller has authority to audit claims against the state and to examine the fiscal affairs of state agencies. Harold’s claims involve disputed premium deductions totaling approximately $133,000–$150,000 taken from his disability/retirement income since 2015.
4. California Department of Insurance. The CDI has regulatory authority over Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of California, including authority to investigate claims handling, data security, and coordination of benefits. The CDI previously participated in enforcement actions arising from the Anthem data breaches documented in Chapter 05. Former Attorney General Kamala D. Harris filed suit against Anthem for the SSN mailing breach (Breach #5). A complaint may be filed at www.insurance.ca.gov or by telephone at 1-800-927-4357.
5. California Attorney General (Cal. Const., Art. V, § 13; Gov. Code § 12500 et seq.). The Attorney General has supervisory authority over all district attorneys and law enforcement in the state and has independent authority to investigate matters involving public trust entities. The University of California is established as a “public trust” under California Constitution, Article IX, Section 9. The Attorney General’s office maintains the California Data Breach Database in which 14 of the 25 breaches documented in Chapter 05 are recorded.
6. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Labor Code § 132a). The WCAB has exclusive jurisdiction over petitions alleging discrimination against employees for filing workers’ compensation claims. The § 132a petition arising from the facts documented in this chapter is filed separately. (See Chapter 12, main text.)
7. California Code of Regulations, Title 8, § 15400.2 — Records Preservation. This regulation provides that workers’ compensation claim files where future benefits may be payable “shall not” be destroyed. Harold’s 2003 workers’ compensation settlement established lifetime benefits. The claim file is subject to mandatory preservation. Ida Fong’s admission that records were “lost during computer system upgrades” and Agostini’s confirmation that UCLA’s financial systems were “erroneous and unaudited” since 2002 raise the question of whether this mandatory preservation requirement was violated.
Prior Formal Audit Request — Unanswered Since November 9, 2021
On November 9, 2021, attorney Edgar Saenz submitted a formal audit request to Alexander Bustamante, Chief Compliance & Audit Officer, University of California, by certified mail (USPS tracking confirmation, return receipt) and electronic mail (email delivery timestamp 3:10 PM). The request sought: (1) an audit of Harold’s workers’ compensation and disability income case to determine his status; (2) an audit to determine what personally identifiable information was breached during UC data breaches; (3) an audit of Harold’s internal UC records within “At Your Service” to determine what records were “lost” per Ida Fong; and (4) an audit of all 1099-R forms issued by UC with an explanation of why reported and taxable income changed year to year.
UC has never responded. The Chief Compliance & Audit Officer of the University of California received a formal audit request from an attorney, sent by certified mail and email with confirmed delivery, requesting an audit of a disabled former peace officer’s benefits records — and did not reply. This is the third formal demand. The first was submitted November 9, 2021. The second was submitted January 31, 2026 (see Chapter 09). UC’s silence is itself a fact the reader may weigh.
The foregoing institutional context informs the eight independently documented reasons that follow. Each reason stands on its own. Taken together — and placed against the backdrop of UCLA’s own CFO confirming that the institution’s financial reporting was unreliable throughout the entire relevant period — they establish that Harold’s transfer to Via Benefits is unsupported by UC’s own published rules, contradicted by UC’s own administrative records, and prohibited by federal law.
___________________________________________________________________________________
THE EIGHT DOCUMENTED POINTS
The following eight points are presented in the order of their evidentiary weight. Each point stands independently. Taken together, they establish that Harold’s transfer to Via Benefits is unsupported by UC’s own published rules, contradicted by UC’s own administrative records, and prohibited by federal law.
1. A UC Official Reviewed UC’s Internal Records in 2023 and Confirmed Harold’s Status Is “Medically Separated” — The Same Disability Classification That UC’s Own Rules Exclude from Via Benefits.
On August 21, 2023, UCLA Police Department Lieutenant Jeff Chobanian, Badge #307, Administrative Division, emailed all UCLA PD retirees requesting they update their records via an active retiree survey. Harold responded on August 21, 2023, at 2:39 PM, asking whether the update would put him back on the CCW qualification list. Lt. Chobanian replied on August 21, 2023, at 5:14 PM: “Let me check your file and I’ll get back to you.”
On August 22, 2023, at 9:53 AM, Lt. Chobanian wrote: “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.” He cited LEOSA (18 U.S.C. § 926C) and stated “the issuance of a CCW would not be feasible.” Harold replied on August 22, 2023, at 11:19 AM, providing his full law enforcement service history:
Rio Hondo — 1983
San Gabriel PD — 1983 to 1985
Culver City PD — 1985 to 1988
UCLA — 1989 to 1996 BUT officially retired in 2002
Harold stated: “My disability service credit with UCLA was maxed at 21 years if I remember correctly. My CCW was also part of a lawsuit settlement.” Harold included a link to Los Angeles Times coverage of the lawsuit: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-04-24-we-49672-story.html
Lt. Chobanian replied on August 22, 2023, at 11:34 AM: “I will need to do some more research. I will get back to you.”
Three days later, on August 25, 2023, at 10:59 AM, Lt. Chobanian emailed Harold his formal determination:
“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. It is important to note that there have been numerous lawsuits concerning this matter, and I have enclosed the most recent case that transpired through the court of appeals.”
Lt. Chobanian continued: “Regrettably, this situation is unfortunate and distinctive to the UC system. It is pertinent to clarify that the Chief does not have the authority to issue a CCW in this case. To provide you with a comprehensive understanding, I have attached the UCLA Police Department Policy, UC Gold Book Policy, and relevant case law from the case of ALLISON JACOBS v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA.”
Lt. Chobanian attached three documents to support this determination:
Attachment 1: Policy 209.pdf — UCLA Police Department Retiree Concealed Firearms policy (Lexipol, 2022)
Attachment 2: DN 010521 — GO 21-02 Retired Officers-Carry Concealed Weapons Policy.pdf — The UC “Gold Book” policy, General Order 21-02, dated January 5, 2021, from Chief Tony Lee
Attachment 3: UCPD CCW Case.pdf — The published decision in Jacobs et al. v. The Regents of the University of California, Case No. B268758, Second Appellate District, Division Two (filed May 30, 2017; certified for publication June 27, 2017)
The Gold Book, GO 21-02, Section 1700.1(b)(1), which Lt. Chobanian attached, states in relevant part:
“An officer receiving duty disability income has not retired or separated from the University of California and is therefore not eligible for a retiree identification card or retiree CCW privileges and is not considered a ‘qualified retired and separated peace officer.’”
The Jacobs case, which Lt. Chobanian attached, holds at page 10:
“Under the UCRP, there is no such thing as ‘disability retirement.’ Members are either retired or disabled.”
And at the same page: “Disabled Members receiving DDI: (1) are not retired; (2) do not receive Retirement Income; and (3) can elect to retire when eligible, but are never required to do so.”
FUPOA — the Federated University Police Officers’ Association, of which Harold is the founding president — was a named plaintiff in the Jacobs case.
On February 10, 2026, Harold sent Lt. Chobanian a formal demand letter with copies of Chapters 00–03 of his evidentiary package, titled Schrödinger’s UC Retiree. Lt. Chobanian responded the same day, February 10, 2026, at 6:13 PM:
“When you asked me to look into your CCW, I did so to help you also as a professional courtesy. I reviewed your ‘file’ and cross-referenced the records, including your date of separation, classification, status, and our internal records.”
Lt. Chobanian concluded: “The decision to decline your request for a CCW is final.”
The Documented Contradiction: Lt. Chobanian is a sworn UC law enforcement officer acting in his official capacity. He reviewed UC’s own internal records — Harold’s “file,” “date of separation, classification, status, and our internal records” — and confirmed in writing on two separate occasions (August 25, 2023, and February 10, 2026) that Harold’s classification is “medically separated” effective March 1, 1996. He cited the Gold Book, which states that officers receiving duty disability income have “not retired.” He cited Jacobs, which holds that under the UCRP, disabled members “are not retired.” He used this disability/non-retired classification to deny Harold a benefit (CCW privileges).
Simultaneously, a different UC office (UCRP/RASC) is attempting to transfer Harold into the Via Benefits Medicare Coordinator Program — a program that UC’s own published rules exclude “recipients of UCRP disability” from in at least five separate documents (see Point 4 below). UC’s own UCRAYS portal reports Harold’s payments under IRS Distribution Code 7 (“normal distribution”), treating him as a retiree for tax purposes.
UC is thus maintaining three simultaneous, contradictory classifications for the same individual at the same time: (1) Not retired (for purposes of denying CCW privileges); (2) A retiree (for purposes of transferring to Via Benefits); and (3) A retiree (for purposes of tax reporting under IRS Distribution Code 7). These three classifications cannot all be accurate. At least two of them must be incorrect.
The Post-Alberts Timeline Problem: Harold’s 2013 CCW was reissued by UCLA PD on August 29, 2013 — eleven months after the Regents of the University of California reportedly discontinued issuing CCW permits to Duty Disability Income recipients following the Alberts v. Regents trial court decision on September 24, 2012. Either UCLA PD was unaware of the policy change in September 2012 when it reissued Harold’s CCW in August 2013 (an institutional communication failure), or someone within UCLA PD reviewed Harold’s file in 2013 and determined he qualified for the CCW on other grounds (which should be documented in the file Captain Chobanian reviewed in August 2023). Captain Chobanian’s August 25, 2023 determination did not address or explain why UCLA PD reissued the CCW in 2013, eleven months after the policy purportedly changed.
The 2013 POST Requalification Certificate: In 2013, the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) issued Harold a POST certificate from the Napa Valley College Criminal Justice Training Center (CJTC), qualifying him for appointment as a full-time sworn peace officer for a period of three years. The State of California itself, through POST, determined in 2013 that Harold was qualified to work as a police officer. Harold was pursuing employment as a District Attorney investigator — a position that would not have interfered with his physical injuries. California’s own peace officer licensing body certified Harold as qualified in the same year that UCLA PD reissued his CCW. Captain Chobanian’s August 25, 2023 determination did not reference or address this POST certification.
Retroactive Application of the 2020 Gold Book Policy: The Gold Book Policy 1700.1 cited by Captain Chobanian is dated August 18, 2020 (General Order 21-02, Department Notice dated January 5, 2021, from Chief Tony Lee). This policy was applied retroactively to eliminate CCW eligibility that had been established by two prior issuances — the original CCW issued on September 6, 2002 by Chief John Chapman, and the renewed CCW issued on August 29, 2013 by subsequent UCLA PD command staff — over an eleven-year period of uninterrupted annual firearms qualifications. No notice was provided to Harold when Policy 1700.1 was adopted that his CCW eligibility, established under prior policy, had been retroactively revoked.
Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBR) Violations: Captain Chobanian’s August 25, 2023 CCW denial was based on his review of Harold’s “file.” The following POBR provisions are implicated by this review and determination:
Government Code § 3305 (Anti-Shadow-File Provision): “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.” Captain Chobanian’s determination that Harold is “medically separated” and “ineligible for a CCW” constitutes an adverse comment entered after review of Harold’s file. Harold was not given the opportunity to read or sign this determination before it was entered.
Government Code § 3306 (Right to Respond): A public safety officer shall have 30 days within which to file a written response to any adverse comment entered in his personnel file. No response period was offered.
Government Code § 3306.5(a) (Right to Inspect Personnel Files): Every public safety officer shall have the right 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. Harold has not been granted access to the file Captain Chobanian reviewed.
Government Code § 3306.5(b) (Affirmative Duty to Maintain Files): The employer has an affirmative obligation to maintain personnel files. Acting Chief Karl Ross previously stated that Harold’s personnel file was destroyed. If the file was destroyed, what file did Captain Chobanian review in August 2023? If a reconstructed file was created, was it created in compliance with POBR requirements, and was Harold notified of its existence and given the opportunity to review it?
Penal Code § 832.8(a): Defines “personnel records” broadly to include “any file maintained under that individual’s name by his or her employer.” The file Captain Chobanian reviewed falls within this definition.
Due Process Violations: Gold Book Policy 1700.5 provides appeal rights for CCW denials pursuant to Penal Code §§ 26310 and 26320, including a 15-day period to request a hearing before a three-member hearing board. Captain Chobanian’s August 25, 2023 denial email made no mention of appeal rights. No written notice was sent by first class mail as required. No hearing was offered. No three-member hearing board was convened. These omissions may constitute violations of California Constitution Article I, § 7 (due process) and the procedural requirements established in Skelly v. State Personnel Board (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194.
2. Federal Law Prohibits Cancellation of Harold’s Medigap Policy for Any Reason Other Than Nonpayment of Premium.
UC enrolled Harold in the UC High Option Supplement to Medicare Plan, effective January 1, 2026. UC’s own UCnet page for this plan (UC High Option Supplement to Medicare | UCnet) describes this plan alongside UC’s statement that “UC offers a Medicare Coordinator Program (administered by Via Benefits) to retirees and to families whose members are all eligible for or enrolled in Medicare and live in a state outside California.” Harold’s Medicare.gov account page, screenshot dated January 2026, confirms that the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) classifies this plan as “Other Insurance” — the standard Medicare.gov designation for a Medigap/Medicare supplement policy. The listing shows: Blue Cross of California, coverage start date 1/1/2026. Harold’s UCRAYS portal confirms: UC High Option Supplement, Medicare Coordination: Yes, monthly premium $727.48.
Under federal law, 42 U.S.C. § 1395ss(q)(1), “Each medicare supplemental policy shall be guaranteed renewable and — (A) the issuer may not cancel or nonrenew the policy solely on the ground of health status of the individual; and (B) the issuer shall not cancel or nonrenew the policy for any reason other than nonpayment of premium or material misrepresentation.”
The only two permitted bases for cancellation under this federal statute are: (1) nonpayment of premium, or (2) material misrepresentation. Geographic location is not a permitted basis. Disability status is not a permitted basis. An employer’s internal administrative decision to transfer a retiree to a different program is not a permitted basis. UC chose to enroll Harold in this plan type. UC cannot now impose a restriction that federal law does not permit.
Furthermore, under 42 U.S.C. § 1395ss(q)(2)–(3), even if UC as the group policyholder were to terminate the group arrangement, Blue Cross would be required by federal law to offer Harold an individual Medigap policy. The statute does not permit a gap in Medigap coverage due to an employer’s administrative decision.
3. UC’s Own Systems Processed Harold’s Arizona Enrollment in This Same Plan on the Same Day UC Said Arizona Disqualified Him.
On November 17, 2025, two UC actions occurred on the same date that reach opposite conclusions about Harold’s eligibility at his Arizona address:
Action A: A UC representative, during a 49-minute, 46-second recorded telephone call, told Harold that because he resides in Arizona, he was required to transfer out of UC-administered medical coverage and into the Via Benefits Medicare Coordinator Program.
Action B: On the same date, UC processed Harold’s UBEN 123 enrollment form for Navitus prescription drug coverage under the UC High Option Supplement to Medicare Plan — at his Arizona address of [ADDRESS ON FILE WITH UC], Arizona [ZIP REDACTED]. This form was subsequently re-faxed and re-mailed on November 21, 2025, and UC accepted and processed the enrollment.
These two actions are mutually exclusive. UC cannot simultaneously enroll Harold in a UC-administered Medicare supplement plan at his Arizona address while telling him that his Arizona address disqualifies him from UC-administered Medicare supplement coverage. UC’s own Via Benefits FAQ, Question #20 (Via Benefits FAQ, Rev. 2021-11-23, p.7), acknowledges that a retiree who moves back to California and “has a Medicare Supplement (Medigap) and Prescription Drug plan through Via Benefits, you may remain in that plan indefinitely and continue to receive the HRA contribution from UC since these plans operate nationwide and you have coverage even in California.” If Medigap plans “operate nationwide” for Via Benefits enrollees returning to California, they operate nationwide for UC enrollees in Arizona.
4. UC’s Own Published Rules Contain Five Independent Disability Exclusions from the Via Benefits Program.
UC has published the disability exclusion from the Via Benefits program in at least five separate locations across four different UC documents. Each is quoted verbatim below with a clickable link to the source:
Exclusion A — Via Benefits FAQ, Question #9 (Via Benefits FAQ, Rev. 2021-11-23, p.3):
Question #9 asks: “I am a retiree or retiring and moving/have moved to a state outside of California. Once I move out of state, what can I expect?” The answer lists four requirements for records to be sent to Via Benefits, including: “(c) not a recipient of UCRP disability.”
Exclusion B — Via Benefits FAQ, Question #2 (Via Benefits FAQ, Rev. 2021-11-23, p.2):
Question #2 asks: “What information/data about retirees does Via Benefits have in their system?” The answer states: “Families with recipients of UCRP disability or in Medicare due to disability are not eligible for this program.”
Exclusion C — Via Benefits FAQ, Question #10 (Via Benefits FAQ, Rev. 2021-11-23, p.4):
Question #10 asks: “Why would I NOT be eligible for a plan through Via Benefits?” The answer includes: “You are disabled and under the age of 65” and “You or a covered family member were diagnosed with a certain medical condition such as End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD).”
Exclusion D — Via Benefits FAQ, Question #19 (Via Benefits FAQ, Rev. 2021-11-23, p.6–7):
Question #19 asks: “If I move out of California, can I remain in my current UC-sponsored group coverage?” The answer states: “Yes, as long as you are under 65 years old and not yet enrolled in Medicare (or covering family members who are under 65), or a recipient of UCRP disability benefits.” This confirms that UCRP disability recipients remain in UC-sponsored group coverage regardless of out-of-state residence.
Exclusion E — RASC Medicare Compliance Guide (RASC’s Medicare Compliance Guide for Members Living Outside of California):
This UC-published guide states under “You are not eligible for Via Benefits, if any of the following is true:” — “You or your enrollees are recipients of UCRP Disability Income.” And separately: “You or your enrollees’ eligibility for Medicare is due to a disability, including End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD).”
Corroborating Source — New Dimensions Benefits Newsletter (New Dimensions, Vol. 37 No. 3, August 2020, p.2):
UC’s own retiree benefits newsletter states that information sent to Via Benefits on the first of each month includes retirees who meet all requirements below, including: “not a recipient of UCRP disability” and “not Medicare-eligible due to end-stage renal disease (ESRD).” The newsletter separately states: “If you are moving out of California, already in Medicare and not due to disability or ESRD, you need to notify UC of your move.”
Harold received a permanent disability determination from Octagon Risk Services (adjuster Grace McAdams) on August 8, 2001, establishing permanent disability payments of $2,835.00 per month plus $240.98 ($3,075.98/month, tax-free). Harold’s workers’ compensation case settled in March 2003. The settlement terms included paid health insurance for Harold and his family for life. This disability determination has never been revoked, reversed, or superseded by any subsequent UC action.
Although UC subsequently reclassified Harold’s payments from “Disability Income” to “Retirement Income” in 2015, this reclassification occurred under documented duress — a third-party adjusting company threatened to terminate Harold’s disability payments unless he submitted to a medical examination, while simultaneously claiming no knowledge of Harold’s settlement agreement. UC’s “At Your Service” confirmed it had no records of the settlement. Harold converted to Retirement Income only to avoid total loss of benefits, based on At Your Service’s verbal representation that UC would continue to pay his medical insurance. The underlying permanent disability has never been medically resolved.
5. Via Benefits Independently Confirmed Harold Is Ineligible and Notified UC in Writing.
On February 2, 2026, Harold spoke with Via Benefits program administrator Joshua Lewis of Willis Towers Watson. The call lasted 7 minutes and 6 seconds. During this call, Lewis reviewed Harold’s file and confirmed that Harold is ineligible for the Via Benefits Medicare Coordinator Program. Lewis stated he would notify UC in writing that Harold’s application will not be accepted.
Via Benefits is the third-party administrator that UC selected and contracted to run the Medicare Coordinator Program. UC’s own FAQ (Via Benefits FAQ, Rev. 2021-11-23, Question #1) describes Via Benefits as “the administrator of UC’s Medicare Coordinator Program (MCP) for Medicare-eligible retirees who live in the US outside the state of California.” UC’s own chosen administrator independently reached the same conclusion as UC’s own published documents: Harold is not eligible.
6. The Via Benefits Program Is Voluntary and Harold’s Consent Was Obtained Through Misrepresentation.
UC’s own UCnet Medicare Coordinator Program page (Medicare Coordinator Program | UCnet) uses the word “offers” to describe the Via Benefits program — not “requires.” The exact language is: “If you are eligible, your enrollment in an individual medical plan through Via Benefits will be paired with a Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA).” The conditional “If you are eligible” confirms this is not automatic. The UBEN 100 enrollment form requires the retiree’s signature, which confirms it is an elective enrollment, not a mandatory transfer. If the program were mandatory, no signature would be required.
Harold signed the UBEN 100 and UBEN 101 forms on December 26, 2025. His consent to sign those forms was obtained during the November 17, 2025 telephone call (49 minutes, 46 seconds), during which a UC representative stated that Harold’s Arizona residence required him to transfer out of UC-administered coverage and into Via Benefits.
That statement is contradicted by: (a) federal Medigap law (42 U.S.C. § 1395ss), which imposes no geographic restriction on Medicare supplement plans; (b) UC’s own Via Benefits FAQ, Questions #2, #9, #10, and #19 (Via Benefits FAQ), all of which exclude disability recipients regardless of location; (c) UC’s own RASC Medicare Compliance Guide (RASC Guide), which states UCRP Disability Income recipients “are not eligible for Via Benefits”; and (d) UC’s own administrative action on the same date, November 17, 2025, when UC processed Harold’s Navitus drug enrollment under UC High Option at his Arizona address.
Under California Civil Code § 1689(b)(1), “A party to a contract may rescind the contract in the following cases: (1) If the consent of the party rescinding … was given by mistake, or obtained through duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence.” Harold’s consent to the Via Benefits enrollment was based on a factual misrepresentation — that Arizona residence required the transfer — which is contradicted by federal law, by UC’s own published policies in at least five separate locations, and by UC’s own simultaneous administrative actions.
7. UC’s Own UCRAYS Screen Shows 100% UC Contribution While Deducting $727.48/Month from Harold’s Pension.
Harold’s UCRAYS Retiree Insurance page (accessed via UCRAYS — UC Retirement At Your Service) displays the following information simultaneously on a single screen:
Line 1: “Percentage of UC Contribution: 100%”
Line 2: “Your Medical Monthly Cost: $727.48”
If UC’s contribution is 100%, the retiree’s out-of-pocket medical cost should be $0.00. The same UCRAYS screen demonstrates the system is capable of displaying $0.00 — it does so for Dental Insurance on the same page (“Your Dental Monthly Cost: $0.00”). Yet for Medical Insurance, where the system states UC pays 100%, the screen simultaneously shows a $727.48 monthly charge.
This $727.48 is deducted monthly from Harold’s pension check. Harold’s March 2003 workers’ compensation settlement included paid health insurance for Harold and his family. From 2003 through approximately 2014, UC honored this term: health insurance was paid by UC and was not deducted from Harold’s monthly disability payment. Harold’s annual 1099 tax forms during this period reflected tax-free disability payments on one form and separately reflected insurance premiums paid by UC on another form.
The premium deductions began after the 2015 reclassification from Disability Income to Retirement Income — a reclassification that occurred under the circumstances described in Point 4 above, where UC’s own representatives and systems had no records of the settlement and threatened to terminate benefits unless Harold converted.
Question for UCRP: If the Percentage of UC Contribution is 100%, why is $727.48 per month being deducted from Harold’s pension for medical insurance? Which figure on this screen is correct — the 100% contribution, or the $727.48 charge? They cannot both be accurate.
8. Harold’s February 8, 2026 Formal Demand to Captain Chobanian Establishes Three Independent Legal Bases for CCW Eligibility, Documents POBR and Due Process Violations, and Demands Production of Records That Would Resolve Every Disputed Issue.
On February 8, 2026, Harold submitted an eleven-page formal demand letter to Captain Jeff Chobanian, UCLA Police Department, in response to Captain Chobanian’s August 25, 2023 CCW denial. This letter is incorporated by reference as an exhibit to this chapter. The letter documents the following independently verified facts:
Service Credit Calculation — Three Independent Paths Exceeding LEOSA’s 10-Year Requirement: LEOSA (18 U.S.C. § 926C) requires “an aggregate of 10 years or more” of qualified law enforcement service. Captain Chobanian calculated only Harold’s UCLA PD service (approximately 8 years), using single-agency time when the federal statute requires aggregate service. Harold’s aggregate California POST sworn law enforcement service spans: San Gabriel Police Department (1983–1985), Culver City Police Department (1985–1988), and UCLA Police Department (1989–1996) — totaling between 11 and 13 years of aggregate sworn service. Additionally, under UCRP § 8.18(e), Harold’s UC service credit with disability accrual equals approximately 21 years, as confirmed by the UC “At Your Service” retirement estimator.
The LEOSA Disability Exception Renders Service Years Irrelevant: 18 U.S.C. § 926C(c)(3)(B) provides an independent basis for qualification: an officer who “retired from service with such agency, after completing any applicable probationary period of such service, due to a service-connected disability.” Captain Chobanian’s own classification of Harold as “medically separated on March 1, 1996” due to a service-connected, on-duty injury is the very status that triggers this federal disability exception. Under the disability exception, the 10-year service requirement does not apply. Captain Chobanian’s determination used Harold’s disability status to deny the CCW while the same disability status independently qualifies Harold under federal law.
Two Legal Frameworks Conflated: Captain Chobanian’s August 25, 2023 determination cited both LEOSA (18 U.S.C. § 926C, a federal statute) and Jacobs v. Regents (interpreting California Penal Code § 16690, a state statute) as though they were interchangeable. They are not. LEOSA is a federal law that preempts conflicting state law under the Supremacy Clause (U.S. Const., art. VI, cl. 2). Jacobs is a published decision of the California Court of Appeal interpreting a state Penal Code section. The Jacobs court never addressed LEOSA’s federal disability exception under 18 U.S.C. § 926C(c)(3)(B). A state appellate court interpreting a state statute cannot override a federal statute that independently qualifies Harold for CCW privileges.
The 2015 Conversion Eliminated the Jacobs Basis: If UC’s 2015 conversion of Harold’s classification from Disability Income to Retirement Income was valid, then Harold is now a “Retired Member” under the UCRP, Jacobs no longer applies to his post-2015 status, and he qualifies under Penal Code § 16690 as an “honorably retired” peace officer who “has qualified for, and has accepted, a service or disability retirement.” If the 2015 conversion was improper, then UC has wrongfully taxed Harold’s income for over eight years and wrongfully deducted medical insurance premiums totaling over $93,000. UC cannot maintain both positions simultaneously: it cannot treat Harold as a “Retired Member” for tax purposes and Via Benefits transfer purposes while simultaneously treating him as “medically separated” (not retired) to deny CCW privileges.
Formal Records Request: The February 8, 2026 demand letter includes a formal request under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (Government Code §§ 3300–3313) for the following records: (a) a copy of the “file” Captain Chobanian reviewed; (b) identification of the type of file (personnel, administrative, shadow, reconstructed); (c) explanation of how the file exists if Acting Chief Karl Ross previously stated it was destroyed; (d) whether multiple files are maintained under Harold’s name; (e) UCLA PD’s current official classification of Harold’s employment/separation status; (f) all records maintained under Harold’s name; (g) written confirmation of appeal rights under Gold Book Policy 1700.5 and Penal Code §§ 26310, 26320; and (h) UCLA PD payroll records, budget documents, and personnel expenditure reports showing any and all payments made to Harold or on Harold’s behalf from March 1, 1996 to the present, including the date and authorization for Harold’s removal from the departmental payroll.
Throckmorton Doctrine and Evidence Preservation: UC possesses the records that would resolve every disputed issue in this case — the settlement agreement, the adjusting company files, the personnel records, the payroll records, the disability determination documentation, the 1099-R source data, and the system records showing when and why Harold’s classification was changed. Under United States v. Throckmorton (1878) 98 U.S. 61 and California Evidence Code § 413, a party in possession of documents that would resolve a dispute who refuses to produce those documents may not later claim the dispute was unresolvable. The February 8, 2026 letter includes a formal litigation hold directing UCLA PD and the University of California to preserve all documents, records, files, electronically stored information, emails, database entries, payroll records, and budget documents relating to Harold. Destruction of evidence after receipt of this preservation demand may result in adverse inference instructions, spoliation sanctions, and independent tort liability under Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1 and Williams v. Russ (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 35.
Personal Liability Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: The February 8, 2026 demand letter places Captain Chobanian on notice that the deprivation of a constitutionally protected property interest — including CCW privileges established by two prior issuances, a settlement agreement, and over a decade of annual firearms qualifications — under color of state authority may give rise to personal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Qualified immunity does not shield conduct that violates clearly established rights. The POBR protections cited above have been clearly established since 1976.
Corroborating Evidence of Systemic Record Corruption and Institutional Nonresponsiveness: The following additional documented facts corroborate the pattern established above:
February 24, 2021: Ida Fong, a University of California employee in the UC Benefits Department, Office of the President, contacted Harold regarding his son Max Harold’s health insurance coverage. According to Fong, Max was listed as “disabled” in UC’s system. Fong wanted to verify if this was still the case so she could extend his medical insurance coverage since Max was over 27 years old. Harold informed Fong that Max has never been disabled. Harold explained that he — not Max — had a disability rating and “Disability Income” from the UCLA Police Department before it was converted to “Retirement Income.” Under federal law (45 CFR § 147.120), group health plans are prohibited from covering dependents beyond age 26 unless the dependent qualifies as disabled under applicable state law (California Insurance Code § 10277). For Max to have remained enrolled in UC health coverage past age 26, UC’s system must have flagged him as disabled. This is direct documentary evidence that UC’s disability coding system was corrupted during the relevant period: a disability classification was erroneously added to Harold’s non-disabled son while Harold’s own permanent disability classification had been removed.
March 18, 2021: Ida Fong contacted Harold a second time. She explained that when UC upgraded their computer systems several years ago, old records were lost and not recovered, and she could not look up any information about Harold’s original workers’ compensation case or disability status. Fong stated she had no computer records about Harold’s status because when UC installed a new computer system years ago, all records from the old system were lost.
November 9, 2021: Attorney Edgar Saenz submitted a formal audit request to Alexander Bustamante, Senior Vice President and Chief Compliance & Audit Officer, University of California, by certified mail and email to [email protected] (confirmed delivery, Gmail timestamp 3:10 PM). The letter requested that UC: (1) conduct an audit of Harold’s workers’ compensation and disability income case to determine his status; (2) conduct an audit to determine what personally identifiable information belonging to Harold was breached during UC data breaches; (3) conduct an audit of Harold’s internal UC records within “At Your Service” to determine what records were lost during internal computer system upgrades; and (4) reverse UC’s action from 2015 when it erroneously and improperly changed Harold’s disability income status to a service retirement and stopped paying for his medical insurance.
As of February 16, 2026 — over four years and three months after the date of Attorney Saenz’s letter — the University of California has never responded. The Chief Compliance & Audit Officer of the University of California received a formal audit request from an attorney, sent by certified mail and email with confirmed delivery, requesting an audit of a former employee’s workers’ compensation, disability, and personnel records — and never responded. This four-year silence is itself a documented institutional act.
__________________________________________________________________________________
THE INSTITUTIONAL CONDUCT THAT CREATED THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CASE UC NOW CLAIMS TO HAVE NO RECORDS OF
The eight documented points above establish that UC’s 2025–2026 attempt to transfer Harold to Via Benefits is unsupported by UC’s own rules, contradicted by UC’s own records, and excluded by UC’s own published disability provisions. This section documents how the workers’ compensation case underlying those disability provisions came to exist — and why it was never properly closed.
Captain Chobanian’s Mandatory Reporting Obligation
Under the UC Policy on Reporting and Investigating Allegations of Suspected Improper Governmental Activities (UC Whistleblower Policy, https://policy.ucop.edu/doc/1100171/Whistleblower), supervisors, managers, and administrators are required to report suspected improper governmental activities to the campus Locally Designated Official. This obligation is not discretionary. It attaches when the information “comes to their attention in the ordinary course of performing their supervisory duties.”
Harold’s February 8, 2026 letter placed five documented facts before Captain Chobanian, each qualifying as potential improper governmental activity under Government Code § 8547.2(c) (violation of state law, economic waste, gross misconduct, or gross inefficiency): (1) destruction of records required to be maintained under Gov. Code § 3306.5(b) and Cal. Code Regs. Title 8, § 15400.2; (2) potential shadow files in violation of Gov. Code § 3305; (3) an adverse determination (CCW denial) without due process required by POBR, Penal Code §§ 26310/26320, and Loudermill; (4) contradictory status classifications across multiple UC systems creating documented financial harm; and (5) personal decision-making on a matter Chobanian’s own prior email stated “rests with the Chief of Police.”
Captain Chobanian’s stated refusal to communicate further (February 10, 2026) does not relieve this mandatory reporting obligation. The UC supervisor FAQ at Question 13 states: “No, leave that to the investigators.” He cannot investigate himself. His compliant path under UC policy is to forward everything Harold submitted to Chief Valenzuela and the UCLA Locally Designated Official. The California Whistleblower Protection Act (§ 8547.11), applying exclusively to the University of California, was enacted by Stats. 1993, Ch. 12, Sec. 8, effective May 7, 1993 — between the two LA Times articles covering Harold’s whistleblowing (February 25, 1993 and April 24, 1994).
A. The Whistleblowing That Preceded the Injury (1992–1995)
Beginning in approximately 1992, Harold engaged in documented whistleblowing activities at the UCLA Police Department. Harold’s whistleblowing was directed at misconduct and civil rights violations by command staff — not the rank-and-file officers he served alongside. He discovered missing police vehicles the Chief had sold for cash to the Tijuana Police Department and to movie studios, police vehicles with missing VIN numbers and license plates, tires from a federal drug asset seizure vehicle sold to a UCLA officer in violation of federal law, and officers being paid who no longer worked for the department. Harold reported these findings to UC President Jack Peltason. Harold also mailed complaints directly to Chancellor Charles Young’s personal residence — not solely through institutional channels. Chancellor Young is a named defendant in Harold v. Regents, SC022125. Harold was elected founding president of FUPOA, the first NLRB-recognized statewide bargaining unit in the history of the UC Police Department.
During the same period (1992–1994), four independent campus newspaper investigations across three UC campuses — the UC Davis California Aggie (October 19, 1992), the UC Riverside Highlander (May 18, 1993), and the Santa Monica College Corsair (March 16 and March 23, 1994) — documented the same categories of institutional misconduct Harold was reporting internally. The Corsair’s Part II documented that UCPD Sergeant Alan R. Cueba, a named defendant in Harold’s tort action, issued a March 20, 1991 memo stating “brutality will not be tolerated” while simultaneously, per the contemporaneous press accounts, refusing to accept formal complaints from citizens reporting the conduct the memo addressed. UCLA Risk Management officer Alan Lieban was quoted in the Corsair dismissing Harold’s charges as “specious,” claiming Harold was “trying to manufacture problems that don’t exist.” UCLA’s Luskin Center for History and Policy subsequently documented Harold’s case by name in its March 2022 institutional publication “The History of Racism and the Quest for Racial Justice at UCLA,” citing the Corsair articles at footnotes 147–164.
As a result of Harold’s whistleblowing and investigations, UC investigated and terminated the Chief of Police and several members of his command staff. UC subsequently hired a new Chief, Chapman, who continued investigating Harold while Harold was on paid administrative leave. The final investigation was conducted by Lieutenant Michael Shain — an officer named in Harold’s pending state tort action for alleged assault and battery against African-American individuals. Lt. Shain’s investigation report alleged Harold displayed his personal firearm and police ID at a bank. Physical evidence proved the report was fabricated. The UCPD Property Sheet Log documented that Lt. Boyarski had taken possession of Harold’s personal weapon, badge, and police identification approximately one year before the date of the alleged bank incident. Harold produced this property log at the Skelly pre-termination hearing (Skelly v. State Personnel Board (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194). Chief Chapman ended the hearing and walked out. Harold was not terminated. Harold was reinstated to full active patrol duty in approximately 1995. Lt. Shain was terminated from UCLA Police Department for falsifying the investigation report.
Harold also filed complaints with both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH). The DFEH investigated and issued a right-to-sue letter, representing an independent state agency’s determination that sufficient cause existed to proceed.
B. The On-Duty Injury and UCLA’s Refusal to Pay or Accommodate (February 1996–August 2001)
On February 16, 1996, Harold was injured on duty while in uniform, during a radio call dispatched by UCPD. He was transported by ambulance to the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center. A physician diagnosed a torn meniscus, back injuries, and additional injuries, and placed Harold on medical leave. Approximately one month later, Harold went to the UCLA Police Department to pick up his regular monthly paycheck. The Chief of Police told Harold he would not receive a paycheck because “it was not clear” his injury happened on duty. Harold’s attorney sent a letter to UCLA presenting two options: either pay Harold his Injured on Duty (IOD) benefits as required, or return him to work on light duty. Harold was willing to perform light duty. UCLA refused both options.
During this period of unpaid medical leave, Harold’s mortgage company called the UCLA Police Department Chief’s office to verify Harold’s employment status for a home refinance. The Chief’s secretary told the mortgage company that Harold was “no longer employed by the police department.” This statement was false; Harold was on medical leave and had neither resigned nor been terminated. As a direct result, Harold lost the refinance, subsequently lost his home, and was forced to file bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court seized Harold’s pending state tort action (Harold v. The Regents of the University of California) as a bankruptcy asset. UC settled with the bankruptcy court for approximately $50,000 to pay Harold’s creditors. Harold received no money personally. Harold never signed a settlement agreement in the tort case, leaving the case technically open for future claims of harassment. Harold’s wife suffered a miscarriage of their third child during this period of financial and emotional crisis.
In March 1996, Harold began working for the Fox Broadcasting Company because UCLA had cut off his pay while he was injured on duty. In December 2002, Harold transitioned to the Walt Disney Company, continuing his professional career in the entertainment industry. Between March 1996 and August 2001, Harold received no regular pay from UCLA, no workers’ compensation benefits, and no disability benefits, yet UCLA continued to carry him on their books as being on leave. Command staff later attempted to characterize Harold’s Fox employment as a voluntary resignation; Harold had in fact requested return to active service multiple times through his attorney and was refused.
On August 8, 2001 — five years and five months after the on-duty injury — Octagon Risk Services, Inc. (a St. Paul member company), through Claim Account Executive Grace McAdams, issued a permanent disability determination establishing Harold’s benefits at $2,835.00 per month plus $240.98, totaling $3,075.98 per month, tax-free, with 85% payable pending final settlement. The workers’ compensation case settled in March 2003 with terms including paid health insurance for life, disability retirement status, and a CCW permit.
C. BruinWatch.org — UCLA Suppressed Harold’s Whistleblower Website Through Trademark Enforcement (Approximately 1998–1999)
During this period, Harold created a website at BruinWatch.org posting publicly available information about the University of California, including documentation of all 1,500 UC-owned properties in California — at that time, the second-largest landowner in the state after the federal government — and information about UC Davis land acquisition practices affecting private property owners. UCLA ordered Harold to take down the website, citing California Education Code Section 92000 and claiming the word “Bruin” was a registered trademark. UCLA took Harold to court in the Santa Monica Superior Court. The court ordered Harold to remove the website or face arrest on criminal charges for contempt of court. Harold’s attorney advised compliance. Harold took down the site. The Internet Archive / Wayback Machine confirms the site existed: http://www.bruinwatch.org:80/ was first captured December 5, 1998, and last captured April 30, 1999, consistent with the court-ordered removal.
The legal basis UCLA cited raises documented questions. California Education Code Section 92000 (enacted 1976, last updated January 1, 1982) protects the name “University of California” and “any abbreviation of it or any name of which these words are a part.” The word “Bruin” is not “University of California,” is not an abbreviation of it, and is not a name of which those words are a part. Harold already understood Section 92000’s scope: he had renamed his police officers’ association from “University Police Officers Association” to “Federated University Police Officers Association” (FUPOA) specifically to comply with this statute. Harold complied with Section 92000 where it actually applied. “BruinWatch.org” does not contain the words “University of California” or any abbreviation thereof. UCLA’s own Office of Campus Counsel identifies federal trademark registrations for “UCLA” and “UCLA Bruins” — not for “Bruin” standing alone. No standalone federal trademark registration for the word “Bruin” has been located in USPTO records. First Amendment protections for noncommercial speech about public institutions were well established before 1998 under Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968) and Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2nd Cir. 1989). BruinWatch.org was not selling goods, was not creating consumer confusion, and was posting publicly available records about a public trust institution. UC now publishes the same category of property information through its own public database maintained by UCOP Real Estate Services & Strategies (RESS) at ucop.edu. UCLA did not dispute the accuracy of the information posted on BruinWatch.org. UCLA’s institutional response was to suppress the publication rather than address the substantive content documenting UC institutional conduct.
D. The Connection: Three Decades of Evidence That Moves in One Direction
The pre-settlement history documented above establishes the institutional conduct that created the workers’ compensation case UC now claims to have no records of. The workers’ compensation settlement of March 2003 — with its terms of paid health insurance for life, disability retirement status, and a CCW permit — was the resolution of documented whistleblower retaliation that included fabricated internal investigations, trademark enforcement to suppress whistleblower speech, refusal to pay an officer injured on duty, false statements to third parties that caused the loss of a home, forced bankruptcy, and the seizure of a civil rights lawsuit. The documented record across three decades exhibits a consistent directional pattern:
1990s: Harold’s personal weapon, badge, and police ID taken by UCLA PD, then the department alleged Harold possessed them at a bank. Property Sheet Log proved otherwise. Items subsequently “found.” Lt. Shain terminated for fabrication. Acting Chief Ross later stated Harold’s personnel file was destroyed.
1998–1999: BruinWatch.org — whistleblower website documenting UC misconduct — suppressed by court order citing California Education Code § 92000 and trademark claims. Section 92000 does not cover the word “Bruin” by its own text, and no standalone federal trademark for “Bruin” has been located. UC now publishes the same category of property information at ucop.edu.
2014–2015: Third-party adjuster “knew nothing about a settlement.” At Your Service had “no records.” Disability classification changed from tax-free to taxable. Insurance premium deductions began.
2021: Ida Fong confirmed records “lost during computer system upgrades.” Harold’s disability coding removed from UC systems while son Max erroneously coded as disabled.
2023–2026: Formal audit request unanswered for over four years. Records production deadline passed without compliance. Captain Chobanian ceased communication upon receiving evidentiary package.
The workers’ compensation case that was never properly closed was the product of documented institutional conduct. The settlement that resolved it included specific terms. UC performed under those terms for over a decade. Then the records supporting those terms became unavailable through processes UC itself controlled. The factfinder is invited to evaluate the documented record and draw their own conclusions.
(Cross-Reference: Chapter 08: The Laws UC Violated — Constructive Notice, Breach of Contract, and Whistleblower Retaliation, Issue IV; Chapter 05: 25 Data Breaches Exposed the Systems; Chapter 06: Ten Contradictions UC Cannot Reconcile; Chapter 10: Master Evidence Index.)
__________________________________________________________________________________
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
The following federal and state statutes address disability discrimination in employment benefits, including post-employment fringe benefits such as retiree health insurance. These statutes are cited here because the documented facts above may implicate their protections. The reader may evaluate whether the facts, as documented, establish a basis for further inquiry under any or all of these provisions.
Section 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 794)
Section 504 provides: “No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States … shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” The University of California receives billions of dollars in federal financial assistance annually and is subject to Section 504. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Section 504 regulations (45 C.F.R. § 84.11) explicitly prohibit discrimination in “fringe benefits,” which includes health insurance. Section 504 uses the broader standard of “otherwise qualified individual” and does not require that the individual currently hold or desire employment.
UC’s Via Benefits program creates a two-tier system: non-disabled out-of-state retirees are transitioned to Via Benefits with an HRA, while disabled retirees are excluded from the program and remain on UC group coverage. UC then attempted to transfer Harold — a disability recipient per Lt. Chobanian’s confirmation and UC’s own internal records — into this same program, citing his Arizona address, while simultaneously processing his Arizona enrollment in UC group coverage on the same date. The documented facts establish that Harold’s disability status was the basis for differential treatment across multiple UC systems.
ADA Title I (42 U.S.C. § 12112) — Stanley v. City of Sanford (2025)
The Americans with Disabilities Act, Title I, prohibits disability discrimination in employment, including “fringe benefits.” The U.S. Supreme Court held in Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida (decided June 20, 2025, 7–2) that retirees who “neither hold nor desire” a job are generally not “qualified individuals” under Title I. However, the Court’s majority opinion, authored by Justice Gorsuch, recognized an exception: retirees may enforce Title I if they “plead and prove they were both disabled and ‘qualified’ when their employer adopted a discriminatory retirement-benefits policy.”
Harold’s disability arose from an on-duty injury on February 16, 1996, during active employment as a UCLA police officer. His workers’ compensation settlement was executed in March 2003, while the employment relationship with UC existed (Harold was receiving Duty Disability Income and accruing service credit). The policies now applied against Harold — the Via Benefits transfer, the 2015 reclassification from disability to retirement income, the CCW denial based on the Gold Book and Jacobs — were adopted or applied during periods when Harold was both disabled and in an ongoing employment relationship with UC.
California FEHA (Government Code § 12940)
The California Fair Employment and Housing Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of physical disability in the “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.” California courts have interpreted FEHA to provide broader protections than the federal ADA. FEHA explicitly covers post-employment fringe benefits, including retiree health insurance. Remedies under FEHA include lost earnings, compensatory damages (with no statutory cap), punitive damages, injunctive relief requiring reinstatement of benefits, and attorneys’ fees.
The documented facts show that UC has applied Harold’s disability classification inconsistently across multiple systems: to deny benefits in one context (CCW privileges) while simultaneously attempting to transfer him into a program his disability excludes him from (Via Benefits) and reclassifying his income for tax purposes (Distribution Code 7). These documented inconsistencies may constitute differential treatment based on disability status under FEHA.
California Labor Code § 132a — Discrimination Against Workers’ Compensation Claimants
California Labor Code § 132a declares it the policy of this state that “there should not be discrimination against workers who are injured in the course and scope of their employment.” The statute makes it unlawful for any employer to “discharge, or threaten to discharge, or in any manner discriminate against any employee because he or she has filed or made known his or her intention to file a claim for compensation” or “because the employee has received a rating, award, or settlement.” Harold received all three: a permanent disability rating from Octagon Risk Services on August 8, 2001 (6¾%, $3,075.98/month tax-free); a Duty Disability Income award paid by UC from 1996 through 2015; and a workers’ compensation settlement in March 2003 that included lifetime paid health insurance, a CCW permit, and a $10,000 lump sum payment. UC honored every term of that settlement for over a decade.
The documented chronology of adverse actions following Harold’s workers’ compensation rating, award, and settlement is as follows:
September 29, 2009 – June 8, 2010: Thomas Herz, UCOP Health & Welfare Administration, repeatedly demanded that Harold apply for Social Security disability benefits, warning on March 29, 2010 that failure to comply would leave Harold “out of compliance” and “jeopardize your UC medical benefits,” and escalating on April 6, 2010 to threaten that “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.” Harold complied. The Social Security Administration confirmed on April 9, 2010 that Harold was ineligible for SSDI because he did not meet the criteria.
2014–2015: A third-party adjusting company demanded a medical re-examination of Harold’s permanent disability, claimed no knowledge of the 2003 settlement agreement, and threatened to terminate Harold’s Disability Income unless he converted to Retirement Income.
June 1, 2015: Harold’s classification was converted from tax-free Duty Disability Income (IRS Distribution Code 3) to fully taxable Retirement Income (IRS Distribution Codes 2 and 7). Monthly medical insurance premium deductions of $727.48 began — deductions that did not exist under DDI and that contradicted the settlement term of lifetime paid health insurance.
February 24, 2021: UC employee Ida Fong of UC Benefits contacted Harold and disclosed that his son Max was erroneously listed as “disabled” in UC’s system. Max has never been disabled. Harold’s permanent disability coding had been removed from UC’s records while a disability coding was erroneously applied to his non-disabled son — direct evidence of systemic data corruption in UC’s disability classification system during the relevant period.
March 18, 2021: Ida Fong contacted Harold a second time and admitted that when UC upgraded their computer systems several years ago, old records were lost and not recovered, and she could not look up any information about Harold’s original workers’ compensation case or disability status.
November 9, 2021: Attorney Edgar Saenz submitted a formal audit request to Alexander Bustamante, Senior Vice President and Chief Compliance & Audit Officer, University of California, by certified mail and email to [email protected] (confirmed delivery, Gmail timestamp 3:10 PM). As of February 16, 2026 — over four years later — UC has never responded.
August 25, 2023: Captain Jeff Chobanian, UCLA Police Department, Badge #307, denied Harold’s CCW, stating: “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.” Captain Chobanian personally reviewed UC’s internal records and personally made the determination. On February 10, 2026, Captain Chobanian confirmed: “The decision to decline your request for a CCW is final.”
November 17, 2025: UC attempted to transfer Harold to the Via Benefits Medicare Coordinator Program, citing his Arizona residence, during a 49-minute, 46-second recorded telephone call — while simultaneously processing his Arizona enrollment in a UC-administered Medicare supplement plan on the same date.
January – February 2026: UC continued to process the Via Benefits transfer during Harold’s scheduled cancer surgery, notwithstanding Harold’s formal objections, the eight independently documented reasons set forth in this chapter, and Via Benefits’ own independent confirmation that Harold is ineligible.
Each monthly deduction of $727.48 from Harold’s pension constitutes a continuing adverse action. Each annual issuance of IRS Form 1099-R with Distribution Code 7 rather than Distribution Code 3 constitutes a continuing adverse action. The continuing violation doctrine applies. A separate petition pursuant to Labor Code § 132a has been filed with the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board and incorporates the documented facts set forth in this chapter and in Chapters 00–11 of the evidentiary package titled Schrödinger’s UC Retiree.
__________________________________________________________________________________
THE CHOBANIAN NOTICE
This notice is directed to Captain Jeff Chobanian personally. Captain Chobanian stated on August 25, 2023 that he “personally” reviewed Harold’s file and made the CCW eligibility determination. On February 10, 2026, Captain Chobanian confirmed that “the decision to decline your request for a CCW is final” and that he had “cross-referenced the records, including your date of separation, classification, status, and our internal records.” Captain Chobanian used Harold’s workers’ compensation disability classification — the very status that resulted from Harold’s on-duty injury and workers’ compensation claim — as the sole basis for denying Harold a benefit that had been established by two prior issuances, a settlement agreement, and over a decade of annual firearms qualifications.
A public safety officer acting under color of authority who participates in discrimination against a workers’ compensation claimant may face personal liability under both Labor Code § 132a and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
___________________________________________________________________________________
SOURCE INDEX
Every source cited in this document is a UC-published document, a UC official’s written correspondence, a published court decision, a federal statute, or a California statute. The clickable links and document references are listed here for verification:
1. Via Benefits FAQ (Rev. 2021-11-23)
2. UCnet Medicare Coordinator Program Page
3. RASC Medicare Compliance Guide
4. New Dimensions Newsletter, Vol. 37 No. 3, August 2020
5. UCnet UC High Option Supplement to Medicare Page
7. 42 U.S.C. § 1395ss — Certification of Medicare Supplemental Policies
8. California Civil Code § 1689 — Rescission
9. Email from Lt. Jeff Chobanian, Badge #307, UCLA Police Department Administrative Division, to Charles A. Harold, Jr., dated August 25, 2023, at 10:59 AM (Subject: RE: UCLA Police Department Active Retiree List)
10. Email from Lt. Jeff Chobanian to Charles A. Harold, Jr., dated February 10, 2026, at 6:13 PM (Subject: RE: FORMAL DEMAND — IMMEDIATE HOLD ON MEDICAL COVERAGE AND SUBMISSION OF EVIDENTIARY CHAPTERS 00–03)
11. Email from Charles A. Harold, Jr. to Lt. Chobanian, dated August 22, 2023, at 11:19 AM (service history and LA Times link)
12. UCLA Police Department Policy 209 — Retiree Concealed Firearms (Lexipol LLC, 2022/12/06)
13. UC Gold Book, General Order 21-02 (GO 21-02) — Retired Officers-Carry Concealed Weapons Policy, Department Notice dated January 5, 2021, from Chief Tony Lee
14. Jacobs et al. v. The Regents of the University of California, Case No. B268758, California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two (filed May 30, 2017; certified for publication June 27, 2017)
15. Section 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 794)
16. ADA Title I (42 U.S.C. § 12112); Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida (U.S. Supreme Court, decided June 20, 2025)
17. California FEHA (Government Code § 12940)
18. Harold to Captain Jeff Chobanian, Formal Demand Letter, dated February 8, 2026 (eleven pages, responding to CCW denial)
19. California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Requalification Certificate, Napa Valley College Criminal Justice Training Center (CJTC), 2013
20. UC Gold Book Policy 1700.1, General Order 21-02, dated August 18, 2020 (retroactive application to previously established CCW eligibility)
21. Government Code §§ 3300–3313, Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBR)
22. Penal Code § 832.8(a) (definition of personnel records)
23. Gold Book Policy 1700.5 — CCW Appeal Rights (Penal Code §§ 26310, 26320)
24. Skelly v. State Personnel Board (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194 (due process requirements)
25. United States v. Throckmorton (1878) 98 U.S. 61; California Evidence Code § 413 (adverse inference for nonproduction of evidence)
26. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1; Williams v. Russ (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 35 (spoliation)
27. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights liability under color of state authority)
28. 18 U.S.C. § 926C(c)(3)(B) (LEOSA disability exception)
29. California Labor Code § 132a (discrimination against workers’ compensation claimants)
30. Ida Fong, UC Benefits Department, Office of the President — telephone contacts February 24, 2021 and March 18, 2021 (erroneous disability coding of Max Harold; admission of record loss during computer system upgrades)
31. Attorney Edgar Saenz to Alexander Bustamante, Senior VP/Chief Compliance & Audit Officer, UC — formal audit request dated November 9, 2021 (certified mail and email, confirmed delivery, unanswered for over four years)
32. Thomas Herz, UCOP Health & Welfare Administration — email chain September 29, 2009 through June 8, 2010 (SSA application demands, offset fee/coverage termination threats)
33. Alberts v. Regents of the University of California, trial court decision September 24, 2012 (Regents discontinued CCW issuance to DDI recipients)
___________________________________________________________________________________
Each of the eight points above is independently documented through federal law, state law, published case law, UC’s own published policies, UC’s own written correspondence from a sworn law enforcement officer acting in his official capacity, UC’s own administrative records, or statements made by UC’s own representatives and contractors on recorded telephone lines. Every quotation in this document is taken from the source cited.