Page:Investigative Report Concerning the Purchase of Fully Automatic Rifles and Flash-Bang Distraction Devices by NPS Park Rangers.pdf/13

 Supervisory Park Ranger’s Truthfulness and Candor

The supervisory park ranger provided inconsistent accounts to OIG agents in separate interviews and made statements that contradicted the narratives of other interviewees. For example, according to the chief ranger, the supervisory park ranger told him that MNP had not ordered fully automatic rifles, but they arrived from the manufacturer with that capability. In contrast, the supervisory park ranger later admitted to OIG agents that he knowingly violated NPS policy by ordering the fully automatic rifles. He claimed, however, that he was "shocked" that the manufacturer actually sent the fully automatic version he had ordered because he thought the manufacturer would reject or correct the order as being out of compliance with NPS policy.

Moreover, the supervisory park ranger first told us that he did not research which rifle model to purchase for the rangers; he "just facilitated" transferring the rifle selection information he received from the park ranger/armorer to the then-chief ranger. The supervisory park ranger said that he did not provide any input concerning which model was chosen and that he did not know the Model R0977 was a fully automatic rifle until he was issued one. He said that he was "shocked" when the rifles arrived at MNP capable of firing fully automatic. In a follow-up interview he later admitted, however, that he assisted the park ranger/armorer with the selection of the fully automatic rifle after researching different rifle models made by Colt and other manufacturers. He also knew that the rifles would arrive at MNP capable of fully automatic fire.

The supervisory park ranger initially told us that he attempted to obtain approval to purchase semi-automatic selector switches for some of the fully automatic rifles from the deputy superintendent, but was told that funds were not available. He later told us that the selector switches were always part of a larger list of items that he was requesting and he did not inform the deputy superintendent of the importance of procuring new selector switches or that the rifles being carried by MNP rangers violated NPS policy.

Regarding the purchase of flash-bang distraction devices, the chief ranger told us that the supervisory park ranger said that MNP was authorized to have a program for the devices. The chief ranger subsequently contacted the DCOP, who did not find an authorization for MNP to have such a program.

The chief ranger and the park ranger/armorer both told us that the supervisory park ranger claimed that the law enforcement specialist had told him that NPS policy did not prohibit the purchase of flash-bang distraction devices. When we interviewed the law enforcement specialist, however, he said that he told the supervisory park ranger that NPS policy does prohibit rangers at local parks from carrying the devices while on duty.

Another example of contradictory statements relates to a story that surfaced during our investigation. An MNP IT specialist told us that in 2013 one of the park rangers invited him to go shooting with him. The IT specialist said that he had heard rumors that the MNP rangers had fully automatic weapons, but it was not until he actually fired the rifle that he knew it was true. He heard later that the fully automatic weapons violated NPS policy. He provided a video from his cell phone of him shooting the fully automatic rifle.