WASHINGTON – Justin T. Yarbrough, 37, a former background investigator who did work under contract for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), was sentenced today to five months in prison on one false statements charge in connection with his falsification of work on background investigations of federal employees and contractors.
U.S. Attorney Jessie K. Liu and Norbert E. Vint, Acting Inspector General for the Office of Personnel Management made the announcement today.
Yarbrough, of Tennessee, pled guilty on April 25, 2019, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to one count of making false statements. He was sentenced by the Honorable Timothy J. Kelly. As part of his plea agreement, he is required to pay $126,693.17 in restitution to OPM. Following his prison term, Yarbrough will be placed on three years of supervised release, with special conditions that include but are not limited to five months of home confinement (with the exception of leaving for work/school/religious obligations/etc.)
According to court papers, Yarbrough was employed by USIS, formerly known as U.S. Investigations Services, Inc., as an investigator under contract to conduct background investigations on behalf of OPM’s Federal Investigative Services, which is now known as the National Background Investigations Bureau (NBIB). NBIB conducts background investigations to determine suitability for federal positions of public trust, including positions having access to classified information and impacting national security. NBIB also conducts investigations for federal employees and contractors seeking security clearances.
Yarbrough admitted that, in conducting these investigations between June 2013 and May 2014, he falsely claimed to have interviewed a source or reviewed a record regarding the subject of the background investigation in roughly 20 investigation reports. For example, court papers state that Yarbrough falsely represented that he had conducted a rental records check on an applicant for a position of public trust with the U.S. Department of Justice.
Yarbrough acknowledged at his guilty plea hearing that his false representations required OPM’s Federal Investigative Services to reopen and rework background investigations that were assigned to him during the time period in which he falsified reports. The government estimated the cost of the recovery effort at more than $125,000 to the U.S. government.
NBIB, through its workforce of approximately 5,400 field investigators, is responsible for conducting background investigations for numerous federal agencies and their contractors, on individuals either employed by or seeking employment with those agencies or contractors. NBIB conducted more than 2.6 million investigations during the 2018 fiscal year. More than 787,557 of these investigations involved applicants for access or continued access to classified information.
NBIB has a robust integrity assurance program, which utilizes a variety of methods to ensure the accuracy of reported information. The falsification of investigative case work by Yarbrough was detected through the program. This is one of numerous cases prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia since 2008 involving false representations by background investigators and record checkers working on federal background investigations. Approximately 25 other background investigators and record checkers have been convicted of charges similar to those brought against Yarbrough.
In announcing the sentence, U.S. Attorney Liu and Acting Inspector Vint praised the efforts Special Agent Natalie Bloom, of the OPM Office of the Inspector General, as well as Lead Investigator Jeffrey Addicks, Special Investigations Branch Chief Kevin Cassidy, and Integrity Assurance Executive Program Director Philip Kroop, of OPM-NBIB. They also acknowledged the work of Assistant U.S. Attorney Kathryn L. Rakoczy of the Fraud and Public Corruption Section, who investigated and prosecuted this matter, as well as former Assistant U.S. Attorney Ellen Chubin Epstein and former OPM OIG Special Agent Samuel Peyton, who both previously worked on the investigation of the matter.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year