Because the FAA enforcement process and enforcement action takes place BEFORE the appeal process, the appeal process can only be redemptive, or keep the status quo. Neither the Administrative Law Judge, full NTSB board, or court of appeals will apply punitive measures or increase the penalty, the appeals process cannot be punitive, of course.

Under administrative law one is convicted by the FAA, and then one has an opportunity to present one's case in appeal, after having become the subject of enforcement action. If enforcement action does not take place (no punitive, or administrative action--eg, no suspension or revocation), then there's nothing to appeal. A successful appeal may see the FAA's action reduced, or reversed. An unsuccessful appeals action will see the status quo remain.

[MOD INPUT] Everybody lay off the insults now, keep it civil.

If you committed fraud, or were overpaid and didn't tell anyone, they might be able to look into that.

But if you're getting paid what you're supposed to be getting paid, no they can't mess with your pension.

Also I'm fairly certain congress recently enacted a statute of limitations to prevent .gov from finding overpayments from 30 years ago, adding up the interest and then billing pensioners for hundreds of thousands $ (that did happen in the past, at least a couple times).

That's the kind of situation where I would expect them to throw the book at you.

If they stick it to those people, and don't prosecute the ones who forgot to report 5% ratings for tinnitus or shin splints, then I can't argue with what they're doing.

I disagree. It's very similar to the NDR check they do on every medical, except they didn't warn you in advance.

But there's no obvious reason that it's not legal, they are comparing databases for which they have legal access since HIPAA does not apply to all federal admin or financial data. IIRC congress actually enacted law to ALLOW the FAA and VA to share this data, some years back.

Your opinion isn't unreasonable, but it's just an opinion, the law says different and it has been exercised in this fashion at least twice this century. If you don't like it, write your congress critters, AOPA, and ALPA and see if someone will take up the cause. Kind of doubt it, since protecting pilots who hide fraudulent medical applications isn't going to be high on anyone's sympathy list.

Worst case, the FAA might decide (or be told) to add a written disclaimer on the 8500 form, just like what they have for the NDR.

Also this has been a known thing for a number of years, it's been in the news and I've made a point of publicizing it here to help get the word out. Why do people think they can still get away with it? It's not 1985...

This is from 12 years ago, I warned back then that this might be coming. They did wait until we pulled out of IQ/AF first, bad optics picking on vets during a hot war.

https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/p...-payments.html

There's a lot that is incorrect here.

The LOI is not placed in "the airman's file". The "airman's file" is kept at OKC and contains 8710s, disapprovals, etc. The LOI is at the office-level and there is no "airman's file" there.

A letter of no-action does not state what you claim, here's the template version from the current order:You may be thinking of the old warning notice process. These days it is not part of any normal process, because if not eligible for compliance action (similar qualification as ASAP), it has to be enforcement. Warning notice was used pre-CA similar to how CA is used now.

If there's an enforcement or warning notice, those do go into the airman's file, not LOIs.
Anytown, US 54321

https://i.ibb.co/rckBcr8/IMG-6421.jpg

https://thehill.com/regulation/court...efit-payments/

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/f...bmitting-false

The Warning Letter is what I referred to, and it does exactly what I claim. I can attest to that personally; for investigations that resulted in no action, a warning letter placed in the file states that no evidence was found of wrong doing, and then goes on to state that doing XXX is a violation of 14 CFR XXX. The employer, or future employer who asks if one has had enforcement action or received a warning letter may not ever read the letter (which states insufficient evidence found to proceed with enforcement. The warning letter, however, has a damaging effect on the career of the airman; in the past, these were supposed to be removed after two years, and this was very frequently not done. Moreover, I can personally attest to employers in PRIA checks receiving not only the warning letter on file, but also a letter of investigation, because I have had new employers tell me about them after receiving my FAA information. I realize the FAA states that this doesn't happen, and that the LOI is a local affair; real-world experience (you can dismiss as anecdotal, if you wish) has proven otherwise.

In short, Iv'e seen both show up in the airman's record.

During the kinder, gentler FAA phase, I've not found that to be the case among inspectors who work in a field where one of the application requirements is that the applicant cannot have had more than two aircraft accidents in the prior five years, for which the applicant as at fault. My respect level for inspectors and their knowledge and understanding of the regulation and associated process is low; the FAA sets the bar low, and it shows. It's for that reason that I was able to have two LOI's and warning letters. One of those I received after a call from an inspector in the LAS FSDO a number of years ago, who told me he wanted evidence to use against my employer; he told me that if I would obtain the records and files from the employer and provide them to the inspector, he would table the matter, because he knew it had no merit (company records showed 1/2 hour too little rest on one date; it was a clerical error and it was obvious. I refused to spy on the employer or steal records. Subsequently, I received a letter of investigation, and. later a warning letter in my file stating that while the FAA could find no evidence of wrong doing, it was wrong of me to do it. Another event involved the head of a FSDO that called me into his office and told me to buy his secretary a dozen red roses, or he'd find a reason to violate me. I kid not. One can't make that **** up.

Is this guy a pilot? Sounds like he can't decide whether he's stealing money, valor, or both.

Nope. Former intel weenie and retired cop.

https://www.recorder.com/Former-Mari...rvice-47373525

Just posted as a counter to someone’s allegation that the government was picking on pilots.