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.
SECTION I: PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This Chapter 12 Supplemental presents a comprehensive, chronological analysis of the concealed carry weapon (CCW) permit history of Charles A. Harold, Jr. (Badge #341, UCLA Police Department, Retired), beginning with the events of March 1, 1996 that established the employment classification Captain Chobanian cited 27 years later to deny Harold’s CCW. The evidence demonstrates that UCLA PD classified Harold as a “retiree” and maintained him on its retiree CCW qualification list continuously from September 6, 2002 through March 23, 2020 — a period of approximately 18 years — while six contradictory employment classifications were simultaneously applied to Harold by different UC offices. On August 21, 2023, UCLA PD Captain Jeff Chobanian addressed Harold as an “active retiree.” Four days later, on August 25, 2023, the same Captain Chobanian denied Harold’s CCW eligibility on the grounds that Harold was “medically separated” and had never retired.
This supplemental establishes reasonable and probable cause that the CCW denial constitutes a criminal violation of California Labor Code § 132a, which provides that it is a misdemeanor for an employer to discriminate against an employee because that employee has filed or made known his or her intention to file a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. The statute specifically prohibits discrimination in the form of discharge, threats of discharge, or any adverse action against an employee exercising workers’ compensation rights.
Cross-References: This supplemental cross-references evidence documented in Chapter 01 (The Unqualified Benefits Transfer), Chapter 03 (Four UC Systems Can’t Agree on Coverage), Chapter 06 (10 Contradictions UC Cannot Reconcile), Chapter 07 (UC’s Own Tax Filings Expose the Switch from Disability), Chapter 08 (The Laws UC Violated), Chapter 09 (The Invalid Election), and Chapter 12 (The Case Against Competence).
SECTION II: COMPLETE CCW CHRONOLOGY (1996–2023)
The following chronology is compiled from documentary evidence in the project files. Each entry identifies the date, the parties, the exact language used, and the source document. The chronology begins with the events of 1996 because the employment classification established on March 1, 1996 is the same classification Captain Chobanian cited on August 25, 2023 to deny Harold’s CCW — making the intervening 27 years of institutional conduct directly relevant to the CCW determination.
1. March 1, 1996 — UC Classifies Harold as “Medically Separated.” Harold is classified as medically separated from UCLA Police Department following an on-duty injury sustained February 16, 1996. Workers’ compensation Claim #199650445. This is the date that will later appear on both CCW cards as “Date Retired: 03/01/96” and in Captain Chobanian’s August 25, 2023 denial as the date of “medical separation.” At this time, Karl T. Ross is serving as Acting Chief of UCLA Police Department. Harold and co-plaintiffs have an active civil rights case, SC022125 (Harold et al. v. Regents of the University of California, filed January 29, 1993, Santa Monica Superior Court), in which Ross is a named defendant. Source: Chapter 00; Chapter 09; Chobanian August 25, 2023 email
2. Approximately 1996–1997 — Harold Files for Bankruptcy. Despite being classified as medically separated due to an on-duty injury and entitled to Duty Disability Income under UCRP § 8.18(a), Harold receives no income of any kind from the University of California. Harold is forced to file for bankruptcy. The bankruptcy case is documented in the federal PACER system. Harold obtains outside employment at Fox Broadcasting in approximately March 1996. NOTE: Karl T. Ross entered a “resigned” classification for Harold in the UC system (date unknown). A “resigned” officer would not trigger DDI payments in UC’s payroll system. This entry may be the mechanical explanation for why Harold received zero disability income for approximately five years despite being classified as a Disabled Member entitled to DDI. Ross was simultaneously a named defendant in Harold’s civil rights case SC022125. Source: Chapter 09, Section V; PACER records
3. July 21, 1997 — Permanent and Stationary Date Established. Dr. Steven Silbart’s Qualified Medical Evaluator report determines that Harold’s industrial injury of February 16, 1996 became permanent and stationary on this date, resulting in a permanent disability rating of 6¾%. However, Dr. Silbart’s report documenting this finding is not completed until December 27, 1999 — approximately 29 months later. The reason for the delay is not documented in any record available to Harold. Source: UCLA_Octagon_letter.pdf; Chapter 06, Contradiction #3; Chapter 09, Section V
4. April 8, 1998 — Civil Rights Case SC022125 Dismissed. The civil rights case Harold et al. v. Regents of the University of California is dismissed. Post-dismissal contempt proceedings continue through approximately November 1998. Karl T. Ross was among over twenty individually named defendants. Attorney for plaintiffs: Saenz Clinco Fisher Diamond & Trope (Edgar Saenz’s firm). NOTE: From March 1, 1996 through April 8, 1998 — the entire period of active litigation — UCLA PD did not issue Harold a CCW permit despite classifying him as separated from active duty due to an on-duty injury. The first CCW was not issued until September 6, 2002 — four years AFTER the civil case was dismissed. Source: Chapter 09, Section V.D; Court records
5. December 27, 1999 — Dr. Silbart Completes QME Report. Twenty-nine months after the P&S date of July 21, 1997, Dr. Steven Silbart’s report is finally completed. The report establishes a permanent disability rating of 6¾%, which translates to benefits of $3,075.98 per month. Source: UCLA_Octagon_letter.pdf
6. August 8, 2001 — Octagon Risk Services Issues Permanent Disability Notification. Octagon Risk Services, Inc., acting as claims administrator for UC Los Angeles, issues the “NOTICE REGARDING START & END OF PERMANENT DISABILITY BENEFITS.” The letter identifies Harold as “Employee: Charles Harold, Employer: UC Los Angeles, Claim # 199650445, Date of Injury: 02/16/1996.” This notice is issued 20 months after Dr. Silbart’s report and 49 months after the permanent and stationary date. Harold begins receiving approximately 85% of the calculated DDI amount pending final settlement. NOTE: The total elapsed time from UC’s classification date (March 1, 1996) to the first disability payment notification (August 8, 2001) is approximately 65 months — over five years. During this period, Harold was classified as a Disabled Member but received zero income from UC. The “resigned” classification Ross entered may explain why the system did not generate DDI payments: a “resigned” officer would not appear in UC’s system as eligible for disability income. Source: UCLA_Octagon_letter.pdf; Chapter 06; Chapter 09
7. March 2003 — Workers’ Compensation Case Settles. Harold’s workers’ compensation case (Claim #199650445) settles. Settlement terms include: lifetime paid health insurance for Harold and his family, disability income (DDI), and the right to carry a concealed weapon as a retired peace officer. Full DDI payments of $3,075.98 per month tax-free commence. The total elapsed time from medical separation (March 1, 1996) to full DDI payments (March 2003) is approximately 84 months — seven years. Source: Chapter 01; Chapter 09
8. September 6, 2002 — CCW Permit #1 Issued. UCLA Police Department issues CCW Permit to Charles A. Harold. The card is stamped “RETIRED.” It identifies Harold as “Police Officer” of “University of California Police Department.” The permit authorizes concealed firearm carry per Penal Code §12027a. Signed by Chief of Police Clarence Chapman. Source: 20020906_CCW_Issued.jpg
9. January 29, 2011 — Range Qualification Completed. Harold completes firearms qualification at Firing-Line Indoor Shooting Range, 1060 North Lake Street, Burbank, California 91502. Certificate documents: 4-hour classroom with written test (score: 100%); shooting test completed January 29, 2011 (score: 500, passing); firearm qualified: SIG P226, 9mm, Serial #U356752, 4.4” barrel, black. Instructor: James E. Bowen. Harold also holds valid California Bureau of Security and Investigative Services (BSIS) Permit for Exposed Firearm (FQ 293760, 9mm, expires 01/31/13) and Guard Registration (G 1541678, expires 09/30/11). Source: 20110131_1209_pd_email_attachment_re_ccw_Chuck_Harold_1.pdf; 20110131_email_attachment_re_ccw_Chuck_Harold_2.pdf
10. January 31, 2011, 12:09 PM MST — Harold to Chief Herren and Mark Littlestone — CCW Renewal Request. Harold emails Chief James D. Herren (cc: Littlestone, Range Master) requesting CCW renewal. States he went to Firing Line in Burbank and qualified. States he also holds a State of California guard and firearms license. Asks to be placed on list for future re-qualifications. Notes his address has not changed in the past 8 years. Attaches two PDF qualification documents. Source: 20110111_cah_to_chief_re_ccw_Yahoo_Mail__CCW_Renewal.pdf
11. January 31, 2011 — Littlestone to Harold (cc: Sgt. Banuelos, Chief Herren) — CCW Qualification Instructions. Mark Littlestone responds explaining the Burbank qualification at a sheriff’s or PD range with a department qualification course would be needed. Offers qualification dates at Angeles Ranges on February 7, 11, 14, or 23rd. States he is forwarding to Sgt. Banuelos “as he’s running the range and has the list.” Source: 20110131_1238_pm_Yahoo_Mail__RE__CCW_Renewal.pdf
12. January 31, 2011, 12:38 PM MST — Harold Reply. Harold responds: “Shotgun as well?” confirming his intent to qualify with multiple weapons. Source: 20110131_1238_pm_Yahoo_Mail__RE__CCW_Renewal.pdf
13. March 2, 2011 — Harold sends updated photo for CCW card. Harold transmits updated photograph to Littlestone (cc: Chief Herren) for new CCW card. Source: 20110302_re_ccw_qualifications_Yahoo_Mail__RE__CCW_Renewal.pdf
14. November 2, 2011, 5:51 PM — Renee Granger to Harold (cc: Sgt. Banuelos, Helen Holden) — National vs. California CCW. Granger informs Harold he is not eligible for a National CCW (LEOSA) because he does not meet the 10-year requirement. However, Granger confirms Harold IS eligible for the DMV confidentiality program for his vehicles. Granger instructs Harold to contact the Range Master or herself for “any future needs regarding your CCW.” Source: 20111103_Renee_Granger_Rang_qualifications_Yahoo_Mail__Re__CCW.pdf
15. November 3, 2011 — Harold Reply. Harold responds: “Thanks Renee! What is the 10 year requirement?” Source: 20111103_Renee_Granger_Rang_qualifications_Yahoo_Mail__Re__CCW.pdf
16. February 24, 2012 — Sgt. Banuelos to Retirees — Range Dates. Sgt. Miguel Banuelos sends range qualification dates for March 2012 at Lopez Canyon Shooting Range to retiree distribution list including Harold. Source: Yahoo_20240212_Mail__Re__March_2012_Range_dates_and_directions_to_new_Lopez_Canyon_Shooting_Range.pdf
17. 2013 (Exact Date to Be Confirmed via POST Records) — POST Requalification Certificate Issued by the State of California. Harold completes the POST Requalification Course at the Napa Valley College Criminal Justice Training Center (CJTC), a POST-certified regional law enforcement training center, pursuant to Commission Regulation 1008 and Penal Code § 832(e). The course is a comprehensive, multi-day training program covering firearms qualification (pistol and shotgun), firearms safety, use of force, arrest and control procedures, classroom instruction with written examinations, and physical fitness requirements. Upon successful completion, the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training issues Harold a certificate qualifying him for appointment as a full-time sworn peace officer in the State of California for a period of three years. The State of California itself determined that Harold was a qualified peace officer. Harold was pursuing employment as a District Attorney investigator. NOTE: This certification exceeds the “sheriff’s or PD range with a department qualification course” that Range Master Littlestone required in January 2011. POST is the body that certifies ALL peace officers in the State of California. A POST academy certification is not merely equivalent to a local PD range qualification — it is the standard against which all such qualifications are measured. It is the gold standard. Source: POST Records (requested via Form 2-366); referenced in Chapter 12, Chapter 06, and February 8, 2026 Formal Demand
18. August 29, 2013 — CCW Permit #2 Issued by Chief James D. Herren. UCLA Police Department issues second CCW Permit. The card states: “RETIRED.” “California CCW approved.” “Retired in good standing from service as a Peace Officer of the state of California.” Badge #341, Rank: Officer, Date Retired: 03/01/96, Service Years: 8. Reverse reads: “This retired officer is authorized to carry a concealed firearm.” Issued pursuant to California Penal Code sections 25455, 25460 & 25465. Signed by Chief James D. Herren. Expires: 08/29/2018. NOTE: This permit was issued eleven months AFTER the UC Regents reportedly “discontinued” what the Jacobs court later called an “erroneous” practice of issuing CCWs to DDI recipients (September 28, 2012). Source: 20130829_UCLA_PD_CCW_Issued.pdf
19. December 4–5, 2014 — Sgt. Jason Pak to ALL Retirees including Harold — Range Qualification. Sgt. Pak sends range qualification dates for December 2014. Email addressed to “Retirees.” Harold is on distribution list. Source: 20141205_ccw_Yahoo_Mail__Re__Upcoming_qualification.pdf
20. March 2015 — Harold’s range dates noted. UCLA range qualification dates April 1, 2, 6, 7, 16. Source: 20150311_ucpd_range_dates_ccw_Yahoo_Mail__03_01_2015.pdf
21. February 8, 2016 — Sgt. Pak to Retiree Email List including Harold. Sgt. Pak emails retiree list seeking contact information for Phil Baguaio. Harold is on distribution. Source: 20160208_range_qualifications_Yahoo_Mail__contact_information_for_Baguaio.pdf
22. February 1, 2017 — Sgt. Kevin Kilgore to “UCLA PD Retirees” — Range Dates. Sgt. Kilgore sends range qualification dates for February–March 2017 at Lopez Canyon. Addressed to “UCLA PD Retirees.” Includes liability waiver. Harold on distribution. Source: 20170201_CCW_Yahoo_Mail__Upcoming_Range_Dates__UCLA_PD_Retirees.pdf
23. August 29, 2018 — CCW Permit #2 Expires. The 2013 CCW permit reaches its expiration date. No renewal is offered by UCLA PD. Source: 20180829_UCLA_PD_CCW_expired_Copy.pdf
24. March 18, 2019, 1:38 PM — Harold to Renee Granger — CCW Inquiry. Harold emails Granger at [email protected]: “I have not received any emails lately by qualifications for my CCW and I noticed it expired last August.” Notes Granger is out sick and wishes her well. Source: 20190326_rene_UCPD_Gmail__RE__My_CCW.pdf
25. March 26, 2019, 2:51 PM — Renee Granger to Harold (cc: Sgt. James Echols). Granger responds: “You must qualify every year. Sgt. Echols sends out an email to all retirees with range dates. I am not sure why you did not get an email because your email address is on the list.” Granger then adds: “I am looking at the list and notice that you changed emails. We were not notified that you have a new email address. [email protected]. I will update the list.” Source: 20190326_rene_UCPD_Gmail__RE__My_CCW.pdf
26. March 26, 2019, 5:44 PM — Granger Reply. “No worries! Echols will be contacting you tomorrow.” Source: 20190326_rene_UCPD_Gmail__RE__My_CCW.pdf
27. March 27, 2019, 5:32 PM — Sgt. James Echols to Approximately 25+ Retirees — Mass Range Qualification Email. Echols sends mass email to retiree distribution list. Subject: “Range Qualification.” States: “We will be conducting range training on April 16th and May 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th. We will also have a make-up day (TBD) for all of those officers who missed the training day or need to re-qualify.” Location: California Tactical Academy Range, bay 4, 6700 Holser Canyon Rd., Piru, CA 93040. Distribution list includes Harold and approximately 25 other retirees (see Section V: Witness List). Source: 20190506_Sgt_Echols_CCW_Training_Gmail__Fw__Range_Qualification.pdf
28. May 6, 2019, 10:07 AM — Harold to Sgt. Echols — Arizona CCW Inquiry. Harold emails Echols: “I have an Arizona CCW permit issued by the State of Arizona (photo attached). Would that qualify for your records?” Attaches photograph of Arizona Department of Public Safety Concealed Weapons Permit for HAROLD, CHARLES ANTHONY. Source: 20190506_CAH_to_UCPD_Gmail__CCW_Qualification.pdf
29. May 8, 2019, 8:22 AM — Sgt. Echols to Harold — Qualification Standards. Echols responds: “In order for us to maintain your CCW, we would need proof that you met the qualification standards. Can you send me your qualification scores signed off by official law enforcement range staff?” NOTE: Echols uses the present-tense phrase “maintain your CCW” — indicating UCLA PD considered Harold’s CCW active and maintainable as of this date. Source: 20190508_Sgt_Echols_Gmail__Re__CCW_Qualification.pdf
30. May 8, 2019, 10:36 AM — Harold Reply. Harold explains Arizona does not require range qualification for CCW. States: “You don’t actually need a permit in Arizona to carry a weapon. Anyone can carry concealed.” Offers to drive to UCLA’s range or qualify at his local PD in Apache Junction, Arizona. Asks about makeup schedule. Source: 20190508_Sgt_Echols_Gmail__Re__CCW_Qualification.pdf
31. January 30, 2020, 9:01 AM — Sgt. Echols to All Retirees (cc: Lt. Richard L. Davis) — Range Qualification. Echols sends mass email: “We will be conducting range training on February 12th, 13th, and March 24th, 25th.” Location: California Tactical Academy Range, bay 35, 6700 Holser Canyon Rd., Piru, CA 93040. Hours: 0700 to 1600. Harold is on distribution. Lt. Richard L. Davis ([email protected]) is cc’d. Source: 20200103_echols_re_CCW_training_R_Davis_copied_Gmail__Range_Qualification.pdf
32. January 30, 2020, 10:08 AM — Harold Reply (cc: Lt. Davis). Harold responds: “Thank you. I will be there March 24th at 1400 hours.” Source: 20200130_CAH_reply_re_CCW_training_echols_and_davis_Gmail__Re__Range_Qualification.pdf
33. January 30, 2020, 11:17 AM — Sgt. Echols Confirmation. Echols confirms: “Ok. I will put you down for that date.” Source: 20200130_1117_am_echols_reply_re_ccw_training_Gmail__RE__Range_Qualification.pdf
34. March 23, 2020, 12:01 PM — Sgt. Echols to All Retirees (cc: Robert Leinweber) — COVID Cancellation. Echols sends cancellation: “I wanted to take this time to advise you that the department is exercising an abundance of caution as well as following the recommendations of the Department of Public Health and the statewide ‘Safer at Home Order’ and has decided to cancel all range training effectively immediately and until further notice. Once it is decided that the order is lifted and it is safe to have such training, I will send out notification to you promptly.” NOTE: Range training was canceled due to COVID — not due to any policy review or eligibility determination regarding Harold or any other retiree. Echols promises to notify retirees when training resumes. No such notification was ever sent to Harold. Source: 20200330_1201_pm_echols_canceling_CCW_Gmail__RE__Range_Qualification.pdf
35. April 14, 2021, 5:57 PM — Teri Duran to Harold — Chobanian Contact Information. Teri Duran ([email protected]), a fellow UCLA PD retiree who appears on the same retiree range qualification distribution list, emails Harold a contact card for “Chobanian, Jeff” at [email protected] with an attached image file. Subject: “UCPD.” Source: 20210414_557_pm_email_from_teri_duran_tdxmanusmaol_com_with_Jeff_Chobania_email_attached_Gmail__UCPD.pdf
36. August 21, 2023, 1:04 PM — Captain Jeff Chobanian to Harold and Other Retirees — “Active Retiree List.” Chobanian emails Harold: “The UCLA Police Department is in the process of updating our roster of active retirees. Your participation will help us ensure that our records are accurate and up-to-date. Please take a moment to complete the survey. Your input will help us maintain an accurate and comprehensive list of retirees.” Chobanian requests: “If you know anyone who retired during the 1990s or the early 2000s, please get in touch with them via text message or email. Our objective is to compile a comprehensive list.” Chobanian closes: “I extend my gratitude for your contributions to UCLA. I apologize for any shortcomings in maintaining an updated list.” Source: 2023-08-01_chobanion_UPDATING_LIST_OF_ACTIVE_RETIREES.pdf
37. August 21, 2023, 2:39 PM — Harold Reply. Harold responds to Chobanian: “Will this put me back on the CCW qualification list?” Source: 20230825_Gmail__RE__CCW_UCLA_Police_Department_Active_Retiree_List.pdf
38. August 21, 2023, 5:14 PM — Chobanian Reply. Chobanian responds: “Let me check your file and I’ll get back to you.” Source: 20230825_Gmail__RE__CCW_UCLA_Police_Department_Active_Retiree_List.pdf
39. August 22, 2023, 9:53 AM — Chobanian to Harold — LEOSA Citation. Chobanian responds: “Your tenure as an officer with UCLAPD was within a span of fewer than ten years.” Cites LEOSA (18 U.S.C. § 926C). Source: 20230825_Gmail__RE__CCW_UCLA_Police_Department_Active_Retiree_List.pdf
40. August 22, 2023, 11:19 AM — Harold Reply — Full Service History. Harold provides complete law enforcement history: Rio Hondo Police Academy 1983, San Gabriel PD 1983–1985, Culver City PD 1985–1988, UCLA PD 1989–1996. States: “My CCW was also part of a lawsuit settlement.” Provides LA Times link documenting the case. Source: 20230825_Gmail__RE__CCW_UCLA_Police_Department_Active_Retiree_List.pdf
41. August 25, 2023, 10:59 AM — THE DENIAL. Captain Chobanian to Harold. “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.” Attaches three documents: UCLA PD Policy 209, Gold Book Policy GO 21-02, and Jacobs v. The Regents of the University of California (2017). NOTE: Chobanian writes “I have determined” — not “the department has determined” or “after consulting with the Office of General Counsel.” The Gold Book Policy (GO 21-02) was created August 18, 2020 and finalized December 4, 2020 — it did not exist when Harold’s CCW permits were issued in 2002 and 2013. Source: 20230825_Gmail__RE__CCW_UCLA_Police_Department_Active_Retiree_List.pdf
SECTION III: THE HERZ/SSA CONTRADICTION (2009–2011)
During the same period that UCLA PD was processing Harold’s CCW renewal as a “retiree,” the University of California’s own workers’ compensation attorney was simultaneously establishing that Harold was disabled and pursuing Social Security disability benefits on his behalf.
The Attorney Thomas Herz Timeline
September 29, 2009: Thomas Herz, UC’s workers’ compensation attorney, initiates correspondence with Harold regarding Social Security Administration (SSA) benefits — a disability-based application establishing that UC classified Harold as DISABLED, not retired. (Source: 20090929_Thomas_Herz_re_SSA_Yahoo_Mail_Re_SSA_determination.pdf)
January 22, 2010: Herz follows up on SSA compliance documents. (Source: 20100122_Thomas_Herz_re_SSA_Yahoo_Mail_Re_documents_for_compliance.pdf)
March–April 2010: Multiple exchanges between Harold and Herz regarding SSA documentation. (Sources: 20100308, 20100329, 20100406, 20100409 Herz correspondence files)
June 8, 2010: Herz continues working on SSA/retirement letter — still establishing disability classification. (Source: 20100608_Thomas_Herts_to_Chuck_Harold_re_Restirment_and_SSA_letter.pdf)
January 29–31, 2011 (seven months later): Harold qualifies at Burbank range and requests CCW renewal from UCLA PD. UCLA PD processes him as a “retiree” eligible for CCW.
August 29, 2013: UCLA PD issues CCW Permit #2 stating “RETIRED” and “Retired in good standing.”
The Institutional Contradiction: UC’s own workers’ compensation attorney (Herz) was simultaneously establishing that Harold was disabled and needed SSA benefits, while UC’s own police department was simultaneously classifying Harold as “retired in good standing” and issuing retiree CCW permits. These are two offices of the same employer, operating during the same time period, applying two contradictory employment classifications to the same individual. This contradiction is documented in Chapter 03 (Four UC Systems Can’t Agree on Coverage) and Chapter 06 (10 Contradictions UC Cannot Reconcile).
SECTION III-A: THE FILE DESTRUCTION PARADOX AND THE 2013 POST RECERTIFICATION
Two additional evidentiary contradictions emerge from the CCW record that require separate analysis because they implicate the foundational integrity of UCLA PD’s record-keeping and the State of California’s own certification of Harold’s status as a qualified peace officer.
A. The File Destruction Paradox: If the File Was Destroyed, How Were CCW Permits Issued?
Karl T. Ross, former Acting Chief of UCLA Police Department, informed Harold’s attorney that Harold’s personnel file was “old and had been destroyed.” (Source: Chapter 00, Section IV; Chapter 06, Contradiction #7; Chapter 09, Section V.D.) This representation was made prior to the 2002 CCW issuance.
Under California Penal Code § 25455, a law enforcement agency is required to issue an identification certificate with a CCW endorsement to an officer who is “honorably retired” as defined in Penal Code § 16690. To issue such a certificate, the agency must verify: (1) the officer’s identity; (2) the officer’s badge number and rank; (3) the officer’s dates of service; (4) the officer’s separation date and type; and (5) that the officer is “retired in good standing.”
UCLA PD issued Harold CCW Permit #1 on September 6, 2002, signed by Chief Clarence Chapman. UCLA PD issued Harold CCW Permit #2 on August 29, 2013, signed by Chief James D. Herren. The 2013 card states: “RETIRED,” “California CCW approved,” “Retired in good standing from service as a Peace Officer of the state of California,” “Badge #: 341,” “Rank: Officer,” “Date Retired: 03/01/96,” “Service Yrs: 8.”
The Question: Someone at UCLA PD verified all of this information — twice. If the personnel file had been destroyed as Ross represented, what source documents did UCLA PD use to verify Harold’s identity, badge number, rank, retirement date, service years, and “retired in good standing” status in order to issue the 2002 and 2013 CCW permits?
Only three possibilities exist:
(a) The file was not actually destroyed, meaning Ross’s representation to Harold’s attorney was false. If the file existed in 2002 and 2013 (sufficient for two CCW issuances), it should exist now and be producible under the February 8, 2026 POBR records request.
(b) The file was destroyed, but UCLA PD issued two CCW permits without verifying the underlying records. Under Penal Code § 25455 and § 16690, this would mean UCLA PD issued permits authorizing the carrying of concealed firearms without verifying the applicant’s eligibility — potentially exposing the department to liability for every act taken by the permit holder during the 21-year period.
(c) Records existed elsewhere sufficient to verify Harold’s status — in a shadow file, in departmental databases, in UC system records, or through other institutional mechanisms. If such records existed for purposes of issuing CCW permits in 2002 and 2013, they constitute the very records Harold has been requesting since 2021 and that Captain Chobanian refused to produce in February 2026. CRITICAL: Under Government Code § 3305, the maintenance of a second file containing personnel information is itself a POBR violation. Section 3305 protects not only the official “personnel file” but extends to “any other file used for any personnel purposes by his employer.” If UCLA PD maintained records about Harold in a secondary location — a shadow file, a database, “internal records” (Chobanian’s February 10, 2026 term) — Harold was entitled to review and sign any adverse comment in that secondary file before it was entered. He was never given that opportunity. The “medically separated” classification Chobanian used to deny Harold’s CCW was drawn from one of these files. Harold never saw it, never signed it, and was never given the 30-day response period under § 3306. (See Section V for full POBR analysis.)
Under any of these three scenarios, the records exist or should have existed. Ross’s representation that the file was “old and destroyed” cannot be reconciled with two subsequent CCW issuances requiring verification of that same file’s contents.
THE FILE EXISTS — UCPD LIEUTENANT CONFIRMS IN WRITING (FEBRUARY 24, 2026)
On Tuesday, February 24, 2026, Lt. James Maurice Echols (Personnel & Training, UCLA Police Department, jechols@ucpd.ucla.edu) sent Harold two emails within 41 minutes. Both emails were CC'd to Lt. Richard Davis (rdavis@ucpd.ucla.edu) and Captain Jeff Chobanian (Chobanian@ucpd.ucla.edu).
Email #1 — 2:23 PM:
"Hello Chuck, I am in receipt of your request and I wanted to inform you that your file has been located and is being sent to me. Once I am in possession of it, I will forward you the information that you requested."
Email #2 — 3:04 PM (41 minutes later):
"Hello again Chuck, My apologies. I am in receipt of your request but I am currently searching for your file. Because of the period of passed time since your retirement, your file has been archived. I appreciate your patience while I continue my search."
The Evidentiary Significance:
Former Acting Chief Karl T. Ross — a named defendant in Harold's civil rights case SC022125 — previously stated that Harold's personnel file was "old and had been destroyed."
Lt. Echols' February 24, 2026 emails establish as a matter of documented fact that the file was not destroyed. A current UCLA Police Department lieutenant, writing in his official capacity on a department email account, confirmed in writing that:
(a) The file "has been located" (2:23 PM statement); and
(b) The file "has been archived" (3:04 PM statement).
A file that "has been located" and "has been archived" is a file that exists. Ross's representation that the file was destroyed is contradicted by Lt. Echols' own written admissions.
Captain Chobanian's Silence: Chobanian was CC'd on both emails. Chobanian previously claimed to have conducted a "comprehensive review" of Harold's file in August 2023 and to have "cross-referenced the records" from a file in February 2026. The record does not reflect any communication from Chobanian to Echols directing him to the location of the file Chobanian reviewed twice.
Sources: Gmail printouts, Lt. James Echols to Charles A. Harold Jr., February 24, 2026, 2:23 PM and 3:04 PM; CC: Lt. Richard Davis, Captain Jeff Chobanian.
B. The 2013 POST Requalification Certificate: The State of California Certified Harold as a Qualified Peace Officer
In 2013 — the same year UCLA PD issued CCW Permit #2 — Harold completed the POST Requalification Course at the Napa Valley College Criminal Justice Training Center (CJTC), a POST-certified regional law enforcement training center, pursuant to California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Regulation 1008 and California Penal Code § 832(e).
The POST Requalification Course is not a local range session or a single-day firearms qualification. It is a comprehensive, multi-day training program administered by a POST-certified academy. The curriculum includes: firearms qualification (pistol and shotgun), firearms safety, use of force instruction, classroom instruction with written examinations, arrest and control procedures, and physical fitness requirements. It is the standard the State of California requires before an individual may be appointed as a full-time sworn peace officer.
Upon successful completion, the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training issued Harold a POST certificate qualifying him for appointment as a full-time sworn peace officer in the State of California for a period of three years from the date of issuance. Harold was pursuing employment as a District Attorney investigator — a position that would not have interfered with his physical limitations.
The Significance: The State of California itself, through its Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training — the sole body authorized to certify peace officers in California — determined in 2013 that Harold was qualified to serve as a full-time sworn peace officer. This is the highest level of peace officer certification the State of California issues. Captain Chobanian’s August 25, 2023 determination did not reference, address, or acknowledge this POST certification.
C. The Littlestone Requirement vs. the POST Standard
On January 31, 2011, Mark Littlestone (Range Master, UCLA PD) informed Harold that his Burbank Firing-Line range qualification was insufficient for CCW renewal purposes because the qualification needed to be at “a sheriff’s or PD range with a department qualification course.” Littlestone directed Harold to qualify at the Angeles Ranges on scheduled dates.
Two years later, in 2013, Harold completed a qualification that exceeded Littlestone’s stated requirement by orders of magnitude: the POST Requalification Course at a California POST-certified police academy. POST is the body that certifies ALL peace officers in the State of California, including every officer at every sheriff’s department and every police department in the state. A POST academy certification is not merely equivalent to a “sheriff’s or PD range with a department qualification course” — it is the standard against which all such courses are measured. It is the gold standard.
If Littlestone required Harold to qualify at a PD range in 2011, Harold obtained the ultimate qualification in 2013 — certification by the State of California itself that he was qualified to work as a full-time sworn peace officer. The 2013 CCW Permit #2 was issued the same year.
D. POST Notification to UCLA PD as Last Employing Agency
The California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training maintains records of all certified peace officers in the state, including their complete employing agency history. When a peace officer completes POST recertification, POST’s records are updated to reflect the certification and the officer’s status. UCLA Police Department was Harold’s last employing agency in the POST system. Harold’s POST record documents sworn law enforcement service at San Gabriel Police Department (1983–1985), Culver City Police Department (1985–1988), and UCLA Police Department (1989–1996), totaling approximately 11 to 13 years of aggregate service.
POST records are accessible to employing agencies through the POST database system. UCLA PD, as Harold’s last agency of record, would have been identifiable in that system. The 2013 recertification is a matter of state record. These facts are relevant to two additional contradictions:
First: Chobanian calculated Harold’s service as “fewer than ten years” based on UCLA PD service alone (approximately 6 years). POST’s own records show aggregate service across three California agencies totaling 11 to 13 years. Chobanian applied a single-agency calculation to a federal statute (18 U.S.C. § 926C) that Congress expressly wrote to require an “aggregate” calculation. UC’s own tax department applied the aggregate public safety employee standard when it certified Harold under IRC § 72(t)(10) to the IRS. But UC’s own police department refused to apply the identical aggregate standard when Harold sought to exercise the CCW rights that flow from the same status.
Second: The POST Requalification Course requires verification of the applicant’s prior law enforcement service. POST independently verified Harold’s status before admitting him to the academy. The State of California thus independently confirmed Harold’s law enforcement background in 2013 — the same year UCLA PD issued his CCW. Two separate California entities (POST and UCLA PD) independently verified Harold’s status in the same year, both reaching the same conclusion: qualified peace officer.
SECTION IV: PERSONS ON ACTUAL NOTICE
The following individuals had direct, documented knowledge of Harold’s classification as a “retiree” within the UCLA PD CCW program. Each individual’s knowledge is established by the documentary evidence cited below.
Karl T. Ross (Former Acting Chief, UCLA PD)
Ross was a named defendant in civil rights case SC022125 (Harold et al. v. Regents, filed January 29, 1993, Santa Monica Superior Court).
Ross entered Harold’s status as “resigned” into the UC system — the fifth contradictory employment classification documented in this evidentiary package (see Chapter 09, Section VI).
Ross stated that Harold’s personnel file was “old and had been destroyed.”
Ross appears on the retiree email distribution list at [email protected] in Sgt. Echols’ March 27, 2019 mass range qualification email. Ross was himself a retired officer receiving the same retiree CCW range qualification invitations as Harold.
Ross had actual notice that UCLA PD was maintaining a retiree CCW program that included Harold. Ross never raised any question about Harold’s eligibility despite having entered a contradictory classification into the UC system and despite having stated that Harold’s personnel file was destroyed.
Chief James D. Herren (Former Chief of Police, UCLA PD)
Herren personally signed Harold’s 2013 CCW Permit (#2), which states “RETIRED” and “Retired in good standing from service as a Peace Officer of the state of California.”
Herren was cc’d on Harold’s January 31, 2011 CCW renewal request from Mark Littlestone.
Herren appears on the retiree email distribution list at [email protected] in Sgt. Echols’ March 27, 2019 mass range qualification email. Herren was himself a retired officer on the same retiree list as Harold.
Herren had direct, personal knowledge of Harold’s retiree CCW status because he issued the card, was copied on the renewal process, and was on the same retiree list receiving the same communications.
Renee Granger (Administrative Staff / Chiefs’ Secretary, UCLA PD)
Granger served as secretary to multiple UCLA PD Chiefs of Police, including Ross, Chapman, and Herren, giving her institutional knowledge spanning multiple administrations.
On November 2, 2011, Granger informed Harold he was not eligible for a National (LEOSA) CCW but confirmed he was eligible for California CCW and DMV confidentiality.
On March 26, 2019, Granger stated: “Sgt. Echols sends out an email to all retirees with range dates. I am not sure why you did not get an email because your email address is on the list.” She identified Harold as one of the “retirees” without hesitation or qualification.
Granger’s March 26, 2019 statement reflects not just her personal knowledge but the institutional classification that persisted through three different chiefs.
Sgt. James Echols (Personnel & Training, UCLA PD)
Echols administered the retiree CCW range qualification program from at least March 2019 through March 2020.
On March 27, 2019, Echols sent a mass range qualification email to approximately 25+ retirees including Harold.
On May 8, 2019, Echols stated: “In order for us to maintain your CCW, we would need proof that you met the qualification standards.” The present-tense phrase “maintain your CCW” indicates UCLA PD considered Harold’s CCW active and maintainable.
On January 30, 2020, Echols sent another mass range qualification email to all retirees (cc: Lt. Richard L. Davis) and confirmed Harold’s scheduled qualification for March 24, 2020.
On March 23, 2020, Echols cancelled all range training due to COVID, promising to notify retirees when training resumed. No resumption notice was ever sent to Harold.
Lt. Richard L. Davis (UCLA PD)
Davis was cc’d on Sgt. Echols’ January 30, 2020 range qualification email sent to all retirees, including Harold. Davis was part of the chain of command overseeing the retiree CCW qualification program.
On February 19, 2026, Davis personally accepted service of Harold’s evidentiary Chapters 00, 07, and 09 — the chapters documenting UC’s contradictory employment classifications and tax filing discrepancies.
Davis has personal, firsthand knowledge of both the retiree CCW program (which treated Harold as a retiree) and the evidentiary chapters (which document that UC simultaneously classified Harold as something other than retired).
Captain Jeff Chobanian, Badge #307 (Administrative Division, UCLA PD)
On August 21, 2023, Chobanian addressed Harold as an “active retiree” and thanked him for his “contributions to UCLA.”
On August 25, 2023 — four days later — Chobanian denied Harold’s CCW eligibility, stating: “Your status was designated as medically separated on March 1, 1996.”
Chobanian wrote “I have determined” — a personal determination, not a departmental or legal one.
Chobanian attached UCLA PD Policy 209 (which states disability retirement qualifies for CCW) alongside Gold Book Policy GO 21-02 (which states DDI recipients do not qualify) — two directly contradictory policies.
Chobanian failed to provide the due process required by his own department’s policy: no written notice by first class mail, no 15-day hearing period, no three-member hearing board (per Policy 209, Section 209.7, and Penal Code §§ 26310, 26320).
On February 8, 2026, Harold submitted a formal records request to Chobanian under POBR. On February 10, 2026, Chobanian refused further communication. On February 18, 2026, the compliance deadline expired with no records produced. A Crime Report under California Labor Code § 132a was filed against Chobanian on February 19, 2026.
SECTION V: THE POBR ANALYSIS — UC’S OWN POSITION CREATES A COMPLIANCE TRAP
The Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBR), Government Code §§ 3300–3313, establishes personnel file protections for public safety officers. UC may argue that POBR does not apply to Harold because he is no longer an active employee. Under Barber v. California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 638, the Court of Appeal held that POBR protections under § 3306.5 do not apply to former officers after separation or termination. However, UC’s own institutional position on Harold’s status forecloses this argument.
A. The Two-Path Trap: UC Loses Either Way
Path A — Harold Is Still an Employee (UC’s Gold Book Position).
UC’s own Gold Book, General Order 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.’”
Captain Chobanian’s August 25, 2023 denial classified Harold as “medically separated on March 1, 1996” and stated Harold is receiving Duty Disability Income. The Jacobs court (which Chobanian himself attached to the denial) held: “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.”
If UC’s position is correct — that Harold has not retired or separated and is receiving DDI — then Harold is still an employee of the University of California. If he is still an employee, he is a current public safety officer. If he is a current public safety officer, POBR applies in full.
Under this path, the following POBR violations are established:
Government Code § 3305 (Adverse Comments — Signature Requirement): “No public safety officer shall have any comment adverse to his interest entered in his personnel file, or any other file used for any personnel purposes by his employer, without the public safety officer having first read and signed the instrument containing the adverse comment indicating he is aware of such comment.” The following adverse entries were made without Harold’s signature: (1) the “medically separated” classification in whatever file Chobanian reviewed on August 25, 2023; (2) the “resigned” classification entered by Karl T. Ross; (3) any entry or notation resulting in Harold’s removal from the retiree CCW qualification list; (4) any entry in the “internal records” that Chobanian referenced on February 10, 2026. Harold was never shown any of these entries, was never asked to sign acknowledging any of them, and was never given notice that any adverse determination had been made.
Government Code § 3306 (30-Day Response Right): “A public safety officer shall have 30 days within which to file a written response to any adverse comment entered in his personnel file. Such written response shall be attached to, and shall accompany, the adverse comment.” Harold was never given the 30-day response period for any adverse entry. He could not have exercised this right even if he had known of the entries, because Karl T. Ross represented that the personnel file had been “old and destroyed.” An officer cannot respond to adverse comments in a file that the employer’s own representative has stated no longer exists.
Government Code § 3306.5(a) (Right to Inspect): Every employer shall permit the officer to inspect personnel files “that are used or have been used to determine that officer’s qualifications for employment, promotion, additional compensation, or termination or other disciplinary action.” The file Chobanian reviewed to make the August 25, 2023 CCW determination was used to determine Harold’s qualifications — specifically, his eligibility for a benefit (CCW) that flows from his employment status. Harold has never been permitted to inspect that file.
Government Code § 3306.5(b) (Duty to Keep the File): “Each employer shall keep each public safety officer’s personnel file or a true and correct copy thereof, and shall make the file or copy thereof available within a reasonable period of time after a request therefor by the officer.” If Harold was still an employee from 1996 through the present (as the Gold Book states), then UC had a continuous statutory obligation to maintain his personnel file for the entire period. Karl T. Ross’s statement that the file was “old and had been destroyed” means UC violated § 3306.5(b). The destruction of the personnel file of a current employee is not merely negligent — it is a statutory violation of the POBR. Furthermore, Harold was classified as disabled (receiving DDI) from approximately 1996 through 2015. What adverse actions were taken against Harold’s interests during that 19-year period? If the file was destroyed, there is no way to determine what entries were made, whether they were adverse, and whether Harold was given the opportunity to review and sign them as § 3305 requires.
The Shadow File (§ 3305 Prohibition on Secondary Files): On February 10, 2026, Captain Chobanian referenced both “your ‘file’” and separately “our internal records.” If these are separate repositories, the “internal records” constitute exactly the kind of secondary file that § 3305 prohibits — a file “used for any personnel purposes” that Harold has never reviewed or signed. Section 3305 does not limit its protection to the official “personnel file” — it extends to “any other file used for any personnel purposes by his employer.” Chobanian used whatever was in the “internal records” to make a personnel determination (the CCW denial). That makes it a file used for personnel purposes. Harold never saw it. Never signed anything in it.
The Financial Consequence of UC’s Own Position: If Chobanian’s August 25, 2023 determination is correct and Harold is “currently receiving Duty Disability Income” — as the Gold Book and Jacobs require for the CCW denial to be valid — then UC has been (1) wrongly deducting medical insurance premiums from Harold’s payment (DDI recipients receive employer-paid insurance under the Employee Paid Disability Plan), (2) wrongly issuing 1099-R forms with Distribution Codes 2 and 7 (retirement codes) instead of Code 3 (disability), (3) wrongly taxing income that should have been approximately 92.7% tax-free since 2015, and (4) owing Harold an estimated $133,000 to $150,000 in overpayments and excess taxes as documented in Chapter 07. UC cannot use the DDI classification to deny the CCW while simultaneously using the retirement classification to tax Harold’s income and deduct premiums.
Path B — Harold Is a Retiree (UC’s Tax and CCW Position from 2002–2023).
If Harold retired or separated, then: (1) the Gold Book DDI provision (GO 21-02, Section 1700.1(b)(1)) does not apply because it only covers officers who “have not retired or separated”; (2) Harold is a retiree, as UCLA PD classified him on two CCW permits (2002, 2013) and in 21 years of retiree correspondence; (3) Harold is eligible for CCW under Penal Code §§ 16690 and 25455 as an “honorably retired” officer who accepted a disability retirement; and (4) the CCW denial was wrong.
Under either path, the CCW denial cannot stand. UC must choose a single, consistent classification. Every available classification leads to the same conclusion: Harold is either a current employee entitled to full POBR protections (and UC owes him approximately $133,000–$150,000 in overpayments), or he is a retiree entitled to CCW privileges. There is no third option.
Or, as the evidentiary record demonstrates: Harold’s personnel file is a Rubik’s Cube — simultaneously destroyed and not destroyed, simultaneously belonging to an employee and a non-employee, containing classifications that were never shown to the officer and never signed. Every face of the cube contradicts another face.
B. Ross’s File Destruction as an Independent Adverse Act
Karl T. Ross’s representation that Harold’s personnel file was “old and had been destroyed” is itself an adverse act under § 3305, independent of any entry within the file. The destruction eliminated Harold’s ability to: (1) inspect his file under § 3306.5(a); (2) identify and challenge adverse entries under § 3305; (3) exercise his 30-day response right under § 3306; (4) request correction or deletion of mistaken or unlawful material under § 3306.5(c); and (5) verify his own employment status, classification, and eligibility for benefits.
If the file was not actually destroyed — as the two subsequent CCW issuances requiring verification of the file’s contents suggest (see Section III-A above) — then Ross’s false representation that it was destroyed is independently adverse. It prevented Harold from exercising his POBR rights by telling him there was nothing to inspect. Either way — destroyed or falsely reported as destroyed — Ross’s representation harmed Harold’s interests.
Ross is a named defendant in civil rights case SC022125 (Harold et al. v. Regents, filed January 29, 1993). Ross entered the “resigned” classification into the UC system — the sixth contradictory employment status documented in the evidentiary package (see Section V-B below for the complete classification list). Ross was himself a retired officer on the same retiree CCW qualification email list as Harold ([email protected], March 27, 2019 distribution). Ross had actual notice that UCLA PD was maintaining Harold on its retiree list and never objected.
SECTION V-A: THE GAP TIMELINE — AFFIRMATIVE REMOVAL FROM THE
CCW LIST
The following timeline establishes that Harold’s exclusion from the retiree CCW qualification program was not the result of administrative oversight, a lost email address, or a policy change communicated to affected officers. The evidence demonstrates an affirmative, undocumented removal from the retiree CCW qualification list — without notice, without Harold’s signature under § 3305, and without the 30-day response period under § 3306.
The Three Gaps
Gap #0: The Pre-CCW Gap (March 1, 1996 – September 6, 2002 — 6 Years, 6 Months)
March 1, 1996: UC classifies Harold as medically separated from UCLA PD following an on-duty injury sustained February 16, 1996. Under California Penal Code § 16690, an “honorably retired” peace officer includes any officer who has “qualified for, and has accepted, a service or disability retirement.” Under Penal Code § 25455, the employing agency “shall” issue an identification certificate with a CCW endorsement to an honorably retired officer.
March 1, 1996: At this time, Karl T. Ross is serving as Acting Chief of UCLA Police Department. Harold and co-plaintiffs have an active civil rights case, SC022125 (Harold et al. v. Regents, filed January 29, 1993, Santa Monica Superior Court), in which Ross is personally named as a defendant. Harold is represented by the law firm of Saenz Clinco Fisher Diamond & Trope (Edgar Saenz).
1996–2001: Harold receives zero income of any kind from the University of California despite being classified as a Disabled Member entitled to Duty Disability Income under UCRP § 8.18(a). Harold files for bankruptcy in approximately 1996–1997. Harold is forced to obtain outside employment at Fox Broadcasting (March 1996) and later The Walt Disney Company (approximately December 2002).
Undetermined Date: Karl T. Ross enters a “resigned” classification for Harold in the UC system. This is the sixth contradictory employment classification documented in the evidentiary package. A “resigned” officer would not trigger DDI payments in UC’s payroll and benefits systems. Ross’s entry may be the mechanical explanation for the five-year payment gap: the UC system processed Harold as having voluntarily resigned, which would suppress any obligation to pay Duty Disability Income. Ross entered this classification while simultaneously being sued by Harold in SC022125.
April 8, 1998: Civil rights case SC022125 is dismissed. Post-dismissal contempt proceedings continue through approximately November 1998.
July 21, 1997 / December 27, 1999 / August 8, 2001: The disability determination process unfolds on a parallel track: Dr. Silbart’s P&S finding (July 1997), report completion (December 1999), Octagon notification (August 2001). Each milestone is delayed by years. Harold begins receiving approximately 85% DDI after the Octagon notification.
March 2003: Workers’ compensation case settles. Full DDI commences. Settlement includes lifetime health insurance, disability income, and the right to carry a concealed weapon as a retired peace officer.
September 6, 2002: UCLA PD issues CCW Permit #1, signed by Chief Clarence Chapman, stamped “RETIRED.” This is the first time UCLA PD acknowledges Harold’s status as a retired officer — six years and six months after medical separation.
The Question: Why was the CCW not issued in 1996 when Harold was classified as separated, or at the latest in 1997 when Dr. Silbart determined the condition was permanent and stationary? The civil rights case SC022125, in which Ross was a named defendant, was active from January 1993 through approximately November 1998. The CCW was issued in September 2002 — four years after the case concluded. Was the delay in issuing the CCW related to the pending litigation in which Harold was suing Ross personally?
The Second Question: If UCLA PD was able to verify Harold’s identity, badge number, rank, retirement date, service years, and “retired in good standing” status in September 2002 (sufficient to issue CCW Permit #1), then the personnel file existed at that time. Ross later claimed the file was “old and had been destroyed.” If the file existed in 2002, it was not “old” in any meaningful sense — it had been used six months earlier. If the file was destroyed between 2002 and 2013 (when CCW Permit #2 was issued, again requiring verification), the destruction occurred AFTER UCLA PD used the file to authorize Harold to carry a concealed firearm.
The Parallel Track: From 1996 through 2015, two UC systems operated simultaneously with contradictory data. UCLA PD’s system (where Ross entered “resigned”) showed Harold as having voluntarily left employment — no obligations, no payments due. UC’s workers’ compensation system (Octagon/adjusting companies) was simultaneously processing an active disability claim for the same individual. The first system suppressed payments. The second system eventually authorized them. Neither system appears to have communicated with the other. From approximately 2002 through 2015, UCLA PD’s own CCW program was treating Harold as a retiree while Ross’s “resigned” entry remained in whatever system it was entered into. Three tracks, three classifications, one employee.
Gap #1: The Pre-Expiration Silence (February 2017 – August 2018)
February 1, 2017: Sgt. Kevin Kilgore sends range qualification dates to “UCLA PD Retirees” including Harold. This is the last documented range qualification email Harold received before his CCW expired.
August 29, 2018: CCW Permit #2 expires. UCLA PD sends no renewal notice. No range qualification dates. No contact of any kind for approximately 18 months.
March 18, 2019: Harold has to initiate contact himself, emailing Renee Granger to ask why he has not received qualification emails.
March 26, 2019: Granger identifies the cause — an email address change: “I am looking at the list and notice that you changed emails. We were not notified that you have a new email address.” Granger updates the list.
March 27, 2019 through March 23, 2020: With the updated email address, Harold receives all retiree communications. The system works. Echols uses the phrase “maintain your CCW.” Harold is confirmed for a qualification date.
The email address issue was identified and resolved in March 2019. From that point forward, UCLA PD had Harold’s correct, confirmed, working email address.
Gap #2: The Post-COVID Silence (March 2020 – August 2023)
March 23, 2020: Sgt. Echols cancels all range training due to COVID-19. Promises: “I will send out notification to you promptly” when training resumes.
March 23, 2020 through August 21, 2023: A period of three years, four months, and twenty-nine days. No range qualification emails. No CCW program communications. No notice of any policy change, eligibility review, or reclassification. Complete silence.
UCLA PD is a functioning law enforcement agency. Its active officers must qualify with firearms regularly under POST requirements. Range training must have resumed at some point after COVID restrictions were lifted. When it did, someone compiled the distribution list for the resumption notices.
Harold’s email address was correct and confirmed in the system from March 2019. It had been used successfully by Echols for over a year.
When range training resumed for retirees — whenever that occurred — Harold was not notified. This was not a technical failure. The email address was correct. This was an affirmative decision to exclude Harold from the retiree CCW qualification list.
August 21, 2023: Captain Chobanian sends an email to Harold and other retirees about “updating our roster of active retirees.” Harold is on the email. Chobanian has Harold’s correct email address.
August 25, 2023: Four days later, the same Captain Chobanian denies Harold’s CCW eligibility.
The Questions This Timeline Compels:
(1) Who removed Harold from the retiree CCW qualification distribution list?
(2) When was Harold removed? Before or after the COVID cancellation?
(3) On what basis was Harold removed? What classification was used? What file was consulted?
(4) Where is the documentation? Under § 3305, any adverse action affecting Harold’s status required his review and signature.
(5) Was Harold given the 30-day response period under § 3306 before being removed from the list?
(6) Did the removal coincide with any review of Harold’s file, any policy change, or any communication between UCLA PD and UC RASC, UCOP, or the Office of General Counsel?
The answers to these questions are unknown because UCLA PD has refused to produce records. But the timeline itself establishes that this was not an error. An error would have been corrected when Granger updated the email address in March 2019. An error would not have persisted for over three years after the correct email address was confirmed and operational. What the timeline demonstrates is a pattern: quiet removal from the qualification list, years of silence, then a retroactive reclassification to justify an exclusion that had already been implemented. This is the pattern of retaliation, not administrative oversight.
B. The Six Contradictory Classifications — Updated Count
The evidentiary record now documents six separate, contradictory employment classifications applied to the same individual by the same employer. This updated count incorporates the Ross “resigned” classification documented in Chapter 09 and the parallel track analysis above:
Classification 1: “Medically Separated” — Captain Chobanian, August 25, 2023 and February 10, 2026. “Your status was designated as medically separated on March 1, 1996.” Used to deny CCW.
Classification 2: “Retired” / “Retired in Good Standing” — UCLA PD CCW Permit #1 (September 6, 2002, Chief Chapman) and CCW Permit #2 (August 29, 2013, Chief Herren). Stamped “RETIRED.” “Retired in good standing from service as a Peace Officer of the state of California.” All retiree CCW range qualification emails 2011–2020. Chobanian’s August 21, 2023 email to “active retirees.” Used to issue CCW permits for 21 years.
Classification 3: “Disabled Member” Receiving Duty Disability Income — Octagon Risk Services letter, August 8, 2001. Workers’ compensation claim and settlement (March 2003). IRS Form 1099-R, Distribution Code 3 (Disability), 2010–2014. UC paid Harold DDI from its police department operating budget. Used to classify Harold as disabled for workers’ compensation and tax purposes.
Classification 4: “Retiree” (Pension Recipient) — UC Retirement Administration Service Center (RASC), 2015–present. IRS Form 1099-R, Distribution Codes 2 and 7 (Early Distribution and Normal Distribution), 2015–2024. UCRAYS portal displays Harold as a retiree. Medical insurance premiums of $727.48/month deducted from Harold’s payment. Used to tax Harold’s income and deduct premiums.
Classification 5: “Retiree on Disability” — Thomas Herz, UC’s workers’ compensation attorney, 2009–2010. Herz established Harold as disabled for purposes of SSA benefits application while UCLA PD simultaneously classified Harold as a retiree for CCW purposes. A hybrid classification used by a third UC office.
Classification 6: “Resigned” — Karl T. Ross, former Acting Chief of UCLA Police Department. Date of entry unknown. Ross entered this classification while simultaneously being a named defendant in Harold’s civil rights case SC022125 (filed January 29, 1993, dismissed April 8, 1998). A “resigned” officer is not a disabled member, is not entitled to DDI, is not “honorably retired” under Penal Code § 16690, and would not qualify for CCW under Penal Code § 25455. Yet UC subsequently issued Harold two CCW permits as “RETIRED” and paid him DDI for approximately 13 years. The “resigned” classification may explain the 1996–2001 payment gap: Ross’s entry in the UC system would have suppressed DDI payments to an officer the system showed as having voluntarily resigned.
Six classifications. One employee. One employer. At least five of them cannot coexist with the others at any given point in time. Each classification was applied without Harold’s knowledge, without his signature under Government Code § 3305, and without the 30-day response period under § 3306. The employer changed Harold’s identity depending on which office was making the determination and which outcome UC preferred at that moment.
C. Chobanian’s Failure to Check POST
On August 22, 2023, Harold provided Captain Chobanian with his complete law enforcement history: Rio Hondo Police Academy 1983, San Gabriel PD 1983–1985, Culver City PD 1985–1988, UCLA PD 1989–1996. Harold provided this information in direct response to Chobanian’s citation of LEOSA’s service requirement.
Three days later, on August 25, 2023, Chobanian denied the CCW based on Harold having “fewer than ten years” of service. Chobanian counted only UCLA PD service — approximately 6 years — and did not apply the federal “aggregate” standard that 18 U.S.C. § 926C requires. Chobanian did not check with the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST), which maintains records of Harold’s complete employing agency history across all three departments. Chobanian did not reference or address Harold’s 2013 POST Requalification Certificate from the Napa Valley College Criminal Justice Training Center.
Harold’s POST certificate was valid from 2013 through approximately 2016. During that three-year window, Harold was corresponding with UCLA PD personnel (Littlestone, Granger, range masters) about CCW qualification. Any of these individuals could have verified Harold’s POST status. None did. The 2013 CCW Permit #2 was issued the same year Harold completed the POST academy. Two separate California entities (POST and UCLA PD) independently verified Harold as a qualified peace officer in the same year, and UCLA PD never connected the two.
SECTION VI: CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE § 132a — CRIMINAL VIOLATION ANALYSIS
The Statute
California Labor Code § 132a provides in relevant part: “It is the declared policy of this state that there should not be discrimination against workers who are injured in the course and scope of their employment. Any employer who discharges, or threatens to discharge, or in any manner discriminates against any employee because he or she has filed or made known his or her intention to file a claim for compensation with his or her employer or an application for adjudication, or because the employee has received a rating, award, or settlement, is guilty of a misdemeanor.”
Penalty: A violation of § 132a is a criminal misdemeanor. Additionally, any employee so discriminated against is entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits caused by the acts of the employer, increased by 50%, up to a maximum of $10,000.
Elements of a § 132a Claim
To establish a violation of § 132a, the following elements must be shown:
Element 1: The employee sustained an industrial injury.
Harold sustained an on-duty injury on March 1, 1996 while employed as a sworn peace officer with the UCLA Police Department. Claim #199650445. Dr. Steven Silbart found Harold permanent and stationary on December 27, 1999. Permanent disability rating: 6¾%. Benefits established: $3,075.98/month in Duty Disability Income (DDI). (Source: UCLA_Octagon_letter.pdf; Chapter 01)
Element 2: The employee filed a workers’ compensation claim, received a rating, award, or settlement.
Harold’s workers’ compensation case was settled in March 2003. The settlement included lifetime paid health insurance for Harold and his family, disability income, and the right to carry a concealed weapon as a retired peace officer. The case has never been formally closed. (Source: Chapter 01, Chapter 09)
Element 3: The employer took adverse action against the employee.
The adverse actions documented in this supplemental include: (a) Denial of CCW permit on August 25, 2023, after 21 years of retiree CCW privileges; (b) Reclassification from “retired” to “medically separated” without notice or hearing; (c) Failure to provide due process as required by UCLA PD’s own Policy 209 and Penal Code §§ 26310, 26320; (d) Refusal to produce records under POBR on February 10, 2026; (e) Application of a policy (Gold Book GO 21-02, created 2020) retroactively to a benefit established in 2002; (f) Affirmative removal of Harold from the retiree CCW qualification distribution list between March 23, 2020 and August 21, 2023, without notice, without Harold’s signature under Government Code § 3305, and without the 30-day response period under § 3306; (g) Ross’s entry of the “resigned” classification into the UC system while simultaneously being a named defendant in Harold’s civil rights case SC022125 — a classification that may have suppressed DDI payments for approximately five years (1996–2001) and forced Harold into bankruptcy; (h) Failure to issue a CCW permit for six years and six months after medical separation (March 1, 1996 through September 6, 2002), a period that coincides with the pendency of civil rights case SC022125 in which Acting Chief Ross was a named defendant; (i) Entry of adverse classifications (“medically separated,” “resigned,” removal from CCW list) in Harold’s personnel file or other files used for personnel purposes without Harold’s signature, in violation of Government Code § 3305; (j) Destruction or claimed destruction of Harold’s personnel file (Ross representation), eliminating Harold’s ability to inspect, challenge, or respond to adverse entries under Government Code §§ 3305, 3306, and 3306.5.
Element 4: The adverse action was motivated by the employee’s workers’ compensation claim or status.
The nexus between Harold’s workers’ compensation status and the adverse action is established by Chobanian’s own words. Chobanian denied the CCW specifically because Harold’s “status was designated as medically separated on March 1, 1996” — the date of Harold’s industrial injury. The denial was based entirely on Harold’s workers’ compensation disability classification. Under § 132a, discrimination “because” of a workers’ compensation claim includes any adverse action that would not have occurred but for the employee’s injury or disability status. Here, Chobanian explicitly cited Harold’s disability status as the sole basis for denial.
Element 5: The pattern of conduct demonstrates retaliation, not administrative error.
The August 25, 2023 denial was not an isolated act. It was the final step in a documented pattern. UCLA PD stopped sending Harold CCW range qualification notices after February 2017. Harold’s CCW expired on August 29, 2018 without a renewal notice. Harold had to initiate contact himself in March 2019 to get back on the retiree list. Granger identified and corrected a stale email address, confirming Harold was “on the list.” Echols then used the corrected address successfully from March 2019 through March 2020, using the phrase “maintain your CCW” and confirming Harold for a March 24, 2020 qualification date. After the March 23, 2020 COVID cancellation — accompanied by Echols’s promise to “send out notification to you promptly” when training resumed — there followed three years, four months, and twenty-nine days of silence. During that period, UCLA PD’s range training for retirees must have resumed (it is a functioning law enforcement agency). When it resumed, Harold was not notified — despite having a correct, confirmed, operational email address in the system. Someone affirmatively removed Harold from the retiree CCW qualification distribution list between March 23, 2020 and whenever retiree range training resumed. That removal was made without notice to Harold, without his signature under Government Code § 3305, and without the 30-day response period under Government Code § 3306. When Chobanian finally contacted Harold on August 21, 2023, it was as an “active retiree” — and four days later, the same Chobanian denied Harold’s CCW based on a classification that contradicted 21 years of institutional treatment. An administrative error would have been corrected in March 2019 when the email address was updated. An administrative error would not survive three years of confirmed, working communications. What the timeline demonstrates is a pattern: quiet removal from the qualification list, years of silence, then a retroactive reclassification to justify the exclusion that had already been implemented.
Why This Is Criminal, Not Civil
California Labor Code § 132a expressly designates violations as a “misdemeanor.” This is not a civil damages claim. It is a criminal charge. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has exclusive jurisdiction to hear § 132a petitions (Labor Code § 5300(f)). A petition under § 132a may be filed as a separate proceeding or as part of an existing workers’ compensation case. Harold’s workers’ compensation case (Claim #199650445) has never been formally closed, providing direct jurisdictional basis.
SECTION VII: RETIREE WITNESS LIST
The following email addresses appear on the UCLA PD retiree range qualification distribution lists compiled from the documented emails spanning 2011–2020. These individuals were participants in the same retiree CCW qualification program as Harold and are potential witnesses to the operation of that program.
Compiled from Sgt. Echols’ March 27, 2019 mass distribution and cross-referenced with other emails:
| # | Email Address | Identifying Information (if known) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | [email protected] | — |
| 2 | [email protected] | — |
| 3 | [email protected] | — |
| 4 | [email protected] | — |
| 5 | [email protected] | — |
| 6 | [email protected] | — |
| 7 | [email protected] | — |
| 8 | [email protected] | Teri Duran — provided Harold with Chobanian’s contact (April 14, 2021) |
| 9 | [email protected] | — |
| 10 | [email protected] | Charles A. Harold, Jr. |
| 11 | [email protected] | Appears to be former Chief James D. Herren — signed 2013 CCW card |
| 12 | [email protected] | — |
| 13 | [email protected] | — |
| 14 | [email protected] | — |
| 15 | [email protected] | — |
| 16 | [email protected] | — |
| 17 | [email protected] | Karl T. Ross — former Acting Chief, named defendant SC022125 |
| 18 | [email protected] | — |
| 19 | [email protected] | — |
| 20 | [email protected] | — |