FBI, DEA and DoD OIG: My 2021–2026 Records Timeline

The Full Story · By Terry
Agency-records edition · Revised September 9, 2026
Historical chronology through September 8, 2026

A first-person account of reports, FOIA requests, official correspondence and administrative claims involving federal and local agencies—with a clear distinction between documents, recollections and unanswered questions.

I did not begin this process intending to build a public record about my own life. I was working, developing technology, dealing with earlier business disputes and trying to move forward after my sister’s death.

When I had concerns, I sought help. When I could not understand what had happened to the information I provided, I began asking for records. Over time, those efforts became a substantial collection of messages, photographs, correspondence, reporting attempts, preservation notices and administrative claim materials.

The questions are straightforward, even where the history is not: What did I report? Which agency received it? What did that agency communicate in response? What records may explain the handling of my information?

This edition focuses on those questions and on the agency responses that can be described accurately. It does not name individual participants, reproduce disputed personal quotations, or attribute private conduct to an agency without supporting evidence.

Some events are documented. Others remain my recollection. Some agency replies answer only a narrow administrative question. This account distinguishes those categories rather than asking the reader to assume that every event belongs to one explanation.

What This Agency-Records Chronology Documents

Reports, responses and evidence are different things

A record showing that I reported a concern establishes that I made that report. It does not independently establish everything I alleged. An agency acknowledgment establishes the acknowledgment, not agreement with my interpretation.

Similarly, a request for records does not prove that the requested records exist. A preservation notice does not prove that someone destroyed evidence. A completed claim document does not establish that an agency received it or accepted its merits.

Those distinctions are part of the source-control method used for this account. They apply whether a document supports my position, limits it, or leaves a question unresolved. [P1]

How the evidence is classified

The working record distinguishes A—documentary evidence, B—independent firsthand witness evidence, C—corroborative circumstances, D—my recollection, and E—an investigative hypothesis.

A screenshot is treated as evidence of its displayed content, subject to authentication and context. A witness repeating what I told them is not independently confirming the event. A date or location may corroborate an encounter without proving what was said. An inference about identity, intent, authorization or causation remains an inference until other evidence supports it. [P1]

The public account is not the entire archive

This article does not reproduce the investigator-facing submissions, private contact information, confidential-source details, personal message threads or unredacted records.

Names are omitted from this edition because its subject is the reporting and records history. The private source record remains separate. This article is also not an announcement of criminal charges, a finding of liability or a determination that an agency directed the private events described as background.

2021: DEA Reporting and Agency Contacts

Earlier correspondence and an unresolved Houston date

The background predates 2021. Earlier materials concern business and payment-processing disputes, and preserved correspondence displays DEA-related government communications dated October 24, 2020.

I have separately recalled an in-person Houston contact around October 2021. The available chronology does not resolve whether that was a distinct interaction or a one-year error in my later recollection. The displayed correspondence date and the recalled visit date must remain separate until additional records clarify the sequence. [P2]

That is a consequential distinction. I should not describe 2021 as my first federal contact when earlier correspondence is available. Equally, the existence of communications does not establish that DEA adopted my conclusions or acted on every subject discussed.

A separate San Diego reporting recollection

I also recall providing information to a contact I understood to be associated with DEA in San Diego during a period I now place around December 2021. Some earlier materials use December 2022.

That discrepancy remains unresolved. Agency intake records and contemporaneous communications may distinguish the interactions. I am not identifying the underlying private source here or assuming that the information caused a particular investigation or prosecution. [P3]

2022: FBI/IC3 Reporting and the DoD Hotline Referral to SDPD

Early conversations and subsequent records questions

During early 2022, I had private conversations about personal and business matters. I later sought clarification about how information concerning me had been handled.

The public account does not reproduce the private conversations or name their participants. More importantly, it does not treat my later concern as proof that a recording, unauthorized disclosure or official investigation occurred. The record described here does not contain an authenticated recording or transmission record establishing the proposed information pathway. [P4]

An agency’s later response about one of those concerns is included in the 2026 section. Its actual conclusion matters more than speculation about what the response might imply.

February–March: Communications I understood to concern DEA

Preserved messages display arrangements for an in-person meeting during February 8–10, 2022, followed by further contact. A March exchange reflects anticipated follow-up.

I understood the contact to be associated with DEA. The messages support the communications and arrangements; they do not independently establish employment, assignment, official authority, a case number or my formal status in an investigation. [P5]

The records question is therefore about official capacity and documentation, not an assumption that a private understanding is already an authenticated agency record.

Summer: A separate Las Vegas law-enforcement encounter

I recall a residential lockout and law-enforcement encounter in Las Vegas during a period of family mediation. My current recollection places it in July 2022, while some earlier materials use August.

The mediation calendar and relevant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department records are the appropriate sources for resolving the date and understanding the response. This account does not establish that a federal agency directed the encounter or that it was connected to another event. [P6]

Around August 8: The FBI/IC3 reporting chronology

My present account places an IC3 complaint concerning suspected federal misconduct on or about August 8, 2022. Earlier materials contain a July/August discrepancy, so the original submission and acknowledgment should control the final date. [P6]

A correction is also important: a later identity attribution discussed in earlier versions was not a name I supplied in that complaint. Later research or suspicion must not be projected backward into what I knew or reported at the time. The person is not named in this agency-focused edition. [P7]

The reporting history is distinct from whether the underlying concern was substantiated. I am not presenting an IC3 submission as proof that an investigation opened, that a particular employee was involved, or that someone outside the agency obtained the submission.

The safety concern I reported

During 2022, I experienced a private communication as threatening and sought help. That describes my experience and account, not an independently established agency action.

This edition does not name the speaker, reproduce the alleged words or connect the communication to an agency through timing alone. The original communication, its context and any independently supported connection remain matters for the private evidentiary record. My own subsequent description of fear is evidence that I made that account, not independent corroboration of everything underlying it. [P6] [P8]

November 10: What the DoD Hotline letter states

A November 10, 2022 DoD Hotline letter states that information I provided caused concern for my safety and that my name and address were supplied to the San Diego Police Department for action deemed appropriate.

Separate closure correspondence states that the Hotline considered the matter within SDPD’s purview and referred it there. [P8]

The correspondence documents a federal-to-local safety-related referral.

It does not identify every record sent, every recipient, the full SDPD response or any later disclosure. It also does not establish that a federal employee made the reported threat. The next question is what agency records show about the referral’s receipt, routing and disposition.

2023: Follow-Up Communications and SDPD Reporting

May 1: Continuing case-related messages

A preserved May 1, 2023 exchange displays continuing case-related contact and my proposal to meet again at a police location.

The exchange supports the communication. The contact’s official capacity, the existence and identity of any agency file, and the meaning of the case reference remain questions for records verification. [P9]

I also recall continuing efforts to obtain help or clarification from SDPD during 2023. Each contact should be evaluated against its own date, source and agency record rather than compressed into a general statement that every agency acted in the same way.

Written DoD OIG records and remembered conversations

I recall additional conversations during this period that affected how I understood the situation. A remembered conversation is not the same thing as an authenticated written determination.

For that reason, this public edition does not repeat remembered legal characterizations as an official DoD OIG finding. The written safety-referral correspondence is described according to its actual content. Other conversations remain in my recollection record unless independently corroborated.

What I was trying to clarify

My concern was practical: what happened to the information I provided, who was responsible for responding, and what action or closure decision was documented?

My recollection of a reporting visit can explain why I requested records. A photograph may support presence at a location. Neither should substitute for a report, referral history or contemporaneous record of a specific conversation. [P9]

2024: SDPD and SDSO Records—and a Separate Collision

February 22: The San Diego Hall of Justice visit

Photographic and visitor-pass material supports my presence at the San Diego Hall of Justice on February 22, 2024. My account is that I went there seeking help concerning matters I had been reporting.

The material supports presence. It does not independently establish the complete conversation, each person’s role or what happened to the information afterward. The resulting records inquiry concerns intake, routing, referral and disposition. [P10]

The visit remains separate from a claim presented to the City of San Diego. I do not treat the building, City agencies and County agencies as interchangeable.

May 18–19: What the SDSO detention certificate says

The San Diego Sheriff’s Office Certificate of Release identifies custody on May 18, 2024, and release on May 19. It describes the custody as a detention only, not an arrest.

That corrects earlier summaries placing the event in late July. [P10]

The correction matters to my personal records and to the chronology. An incorrect date can create the appearance that separate events occurred in a connected sequence. The certificate provides a firm date reference, while the underlying reports and record history are needed to answer additional questions about the encounter and subsequent record handling.

August–September: Requests about the record history

Earlier working materials describe an August change in record terminology. The underlying audit history has not been established in the record reviewed for this account.

I am therefore seeking the record history rather than asserting that a particular person deliberately altered a record. The May certificate independently describes detention-only status; it is not an audit log proving when or why a later entry changed. [P11]

Documents dated September 9, 2024 include an SDSO records request and an appeal concerning the detention-related record. Those documents establish what was requested. Transmission, receipt and the underlying disposition are separate verification questions. [P11]

A separate local contact about a tire-related concern also occurred around this period, according to my recollection and an outgoing email referencing the earlier contact. I remember receiving helpful assistance. That matter is not presented as part of a federal operation or as evidence of unlawful access to my information. [P11]

December 30: The pedestrian collision in Del Mar

On December 30, 2024, a vehicle struck me in Del Mar. Official collision materials record the event at 5:36 p.m. and document hospital transport. [P12]

The official report includes accounts of roadway movements that I dispute. My written rebuttal preserves my account separately. Both versions remain relevant to examination of the collision evidence.

The collision is included because it affected my health and the chronology of my recovery. No connection between the collision and the agency matters is established by the records described here.

This edition does not name drivers, witnesses or private contacts, and it does not arrange private messages around the collision in a way that suggests foreknowledge or responsibility. Questions about the collision must be assessed from the collision evidence itself. [P12]

2025: Medical Recovery and Returning to Work

Surgery and the recovery timeline

I underwent surgery for the leg and ankle injuries in January 2025. The operative record should supply the precise date; messages about a scheduled or delayed procedure are not a substitute. [P13]

My recovery was not a brief interruption. I recall living in a hotel for approximately four months, being unable to drive for more than six months, and being unable to run for roughly six to eight months. I had physical therapy and substantial assistance with daily life, including a full-time caretaker.

I also remember a prolonged period of mental fog and difficulty feeling like myself. Those descriptions are my experience and recollection, not a medical opinion about the cause of every symptom.

Medical, rehabilitation, accommodation and other contemporaneous records should supply the precise dates and amounts used in a formal damages presentation. The working chronology uses approximate recovery periods rather than presenting them as a complete medical record. [P13]

Returning to work

I believe the disruption of these years affected my work. Establishing a particular financial loss and attributing it to particular conduct are separate tasks requiring their own records. This public account does not assign the collision injuries or business losses to an agency without that evidence.

2026: DoD OIG, NCIS and Local Agency Responses

Preservation correspondence from SDPD

By 2026, the work had become increasingly specific: identify the record sought, the likely custodian, the relevant period and the response received.

An SDPD written confirmation states that its units and personnel were notified to preserve responsive evidence. That documents the stated notification. It does not independently establish which records exist, what they contain or the implementation of every requested preservation measure. [P14]

A preservation request is not an allegation that evidence has already been destroyed. The purpose is to maintain the material needed to answer outstanding questions.

August 17–18: The limited scope of the NCIS response

NCIS correspondence addressed current affiliation in response to a verification inquiry. Follow-up correspondence clarified that its scope concerned current status rather than a complete historical employment or contractor review.

The response does not establish historical affiliation or resolve allegations about conduct. Equally, an unresolved historical question is not proof that the affiliation existed. [P15]

The relevant point for this agency-focused chronology is the scope of the response—not the identity of the person who was the subject of the inquiry.

August 20: Attleboro Police Department’s written response

An August 20, 2026 response from the Attleboro Police Department states that the information presented did not provide a sufficient factual basis to initiate the requested internal affairs investigation.

The response reports no evidence substantiating the claimed recording on the information reviewed and no evidence of Department resources being used to record or transmit the meeting at issue. It also states that the encounter was not Department-assigned or authorized activity and was not an Attleboro investigation. [P16]

That conclusion is included here rather than omitted. The letter limits its determination to the Department’s internal affairs review; it does not decide a private civil claim or a matter within another entity’s jurisdiction.

The absence of an Attleboro assignment is not affirmative proof of an FBI, DEA or other agency assignment. This public account does not use the response to infer a different agency’s involvement.

August 27: The DoD OIG FOIA appeal acknowledgment

An August 27 acknowledgment states that DoD OIG received my request for appellate review on August 26 and combined two FOIA appeals under one appeal number.

That is a documented procedural event, not a decision establishing the underlying allegations. Later correspondence must be read for its own content; this acknowledgment is not presented as a statement of current appeal status. [P17]

Early September: A focused SDPD/DEA capacity inquiry

I report submitting a focused public-records request in early September seeking records that could clarify the official capacity of a prior contact and any relevant SDPD/DEA assignment.

The question is whether agency-held records identify the role, period, communications and routing involved. I am not asserting that a particular assignment or formal relationship has already been confirmed.

FTCA Administrative Claims: Separate DOJ, Air Force and Navy Tracks

What I report submitting

I report submitting DOJ/FBI/DEA administrative claim materials in mid-August 2026 and mailing a separate Navy-related packet on August 24.

The existing control records distinguish those accounts from independently verified agency receipt. Preparation, transmission, delivery, receipt and any agency determination are tracked separately. [P18]

The Air Force/AFOSI materials are maintained as a distinct track. Their inclusion in the working record is not described here as proof of mailing, agency receipt or a final determination.

These materials set out claims and requests for review. Their existence does not establish that an agency admitted fault or that a court found anyone liable.

The City of San Diego claim remains separate

I report submitting an administrative claim to the City of San Diego on September 4, 2026.

The City claim materials distinguish identified City conduct from federal conduct, County conduct, private conduct and the December 2024 collision. The public chronology preserves those boundaries. [P19]

An item’s relevance to one matter does not automatically establish its relevance to another. The investigative, records, administrative claim and business histories remain separately controlled. [P1]

FOIA and Privacy Act Requests: What the Records May Clarify

Receipt, routing and disposition

The records I am seeking may clarify when information was received, where it was routed, whether it was referred elsewhere, and what response or closure decision was recorded.

That would allow a more precise chronology than a general statement that I contacted an agency and did not obtain the answer I expected. It may also reveal that an agency acted in ways not apparent from the correspondence currently available to me.

A response that narrows or contradicts my understanding still belongs in the record.

Access and disclosure questions

Where appropriate, my requests seek records that may document handling of information about me. The fact that I seek those records does not establish unauthorized access or disclosure.

I distinguish the documented DoD-to-SDPD referral from any unverified concern about a different information pathway. They should not be combined into a single assumed leak. [P8]

An agency’s role must be established by records specific to that agency and interaction. I do not substitute an agency’s name for a private person whose conduct or affiliation remains unresolved.

Evidence Preservation and Corrections

Originals remain separate from public working copies

The working method is to preserve original files and treat redacted or annotated versions as derivatives. A full conversation matters more than an isolated phrase; source information and dates matter more than a later annotation.

The same principle applies to government correspondence. Its evidentiary significance depends on what it actually states, not on the conclusion I hoped to receive. The archive retains material that limits or contradicts my interpretation. [P1]

Correcting the chronology without erasing the history

The record already includes corrections affecting the May 2024 detention dates, the distinction between displayed 2020 correspondence and a recalled 2021 Houston contact, and the content of the August 2022 IC3 complaint. [P2] [P7] [P10]

Earlier source files and working versions remain in the private record. A public correction should explain what changed without unnecessarily repeating a personal allegation or exposing someone’s private information.

This edition also narrows the article’s publication scope to agency reporting and responses. It does not silently amend a filed claim or change the underlying source record.

The Agency-Records Questions That Remain Open

The unresolved questions concern identifiable records and actions: what each agency received, what it sent elsewhere, what it preserved, what role a contact held, and how a request or report was resolved.

Some questions may be answered by a document. Others may require a firsthand witness account or comparison of conflicting sources. A missing record in my own collection does not establish that the agency never created one, just as a pending question does not establish misconduct.

The goal is not to make every event fit. It is to determine which propositions the evidence supports and which should be corrected, narrowed or left unproven.

Seeking Accountability—and Returning to Work

Why this account is public

I want the history to be understood through dated records and clear boundaries rather than isolated screenshots or emotionally charged fragments.

That creates an obligation on my part to correct errors, retain conflicting evidence and distinguish what I know from what I suspect. It also allows me to ask direct questions about the handling of my reports without presenting a private theory as an official finding.

This website is not an invitation to identify, contact or harass private people or their families. The purpose is lawful accountability and an accurate record.

Where I want the story to end

I want answers. I want errors in my records corrected where the evidence warrants correction. I want the safety concerns I reported evaluated on their merits, and I want an accurate account of what happened to the information I provided.

But I also want my life to be about more than this process.

I want to get back to building. I would like to work with people in law enforcement and government on whether something I developed could help protect somebody else.

That work must stand on its own evidence, testing and results—not on this personal account.

The accountability questions still deserve answers. But accountability is not where I want this story to end. I would much rather end it by contributing something useful.

Source Notes for This Public Chronology

These notes identify source categories used in the working chronology. They are not links to a public exhibit archive, a claim that every original has been independently authenticated, or a substitute for the source documents. Names, contact details and investigator-facing materials are intentionally not reproduced. Passages attributed to my recollection or reported submissions retain that status.

P1 — Evidence controls. The controlled source package’s evidence categories, original-file preservation rules, treatment of conflicting context and separation of proceedings.

P2 — Earlier business and federal contact history. Historical business materials, displayed October 24, 2020 government correspondence and the chronology’s separate recollection of a 2021 Houston interaction.

P3 — San Diego reporting-date discrepancy. The recollection ledger records a December 2021/December 2022 discrepancy concerning a San Diego reporting contact. The date remains unresolved pending contemporaneous communications or agency records.

P4 — Early-2022 private-conversation context. The recollection ledger and corroborative chronology materials, which do not establish a recording or dissemination pathway.

P5 — February–March 2022 communications. Preserved meeting-arrangement and follow-up messages; official capacity, assignment and formal status remain verification questions.

P6 — Summer 2022 recollection and reporting ledger. Entries addressing the IC3 date discrepancy, the Las Vegas encounter and the private safety concern reported by Terry.

P7 — IC3 attribution correction. The author’s correction distinguishing a later identity attribution from the content and knowledge reflected in the August 2022 complaint; the original submission remains controlling.

P8 — DoD Hotline correspondence. The closure/referral correspondence and November 10, 2022 safety-disclosure letter, distinct from Terry’s own account of the underlying concern.

P9 — 2023 follow-up. The May 1 message exchange and the recollection ledger concerning local reporting contacts. Location material does not establish exact spoken words.

P10 — Hall of Justice and SDSO dates. Visitor/pass and photographic material, and the Certificate of Release identifying May 18–19, 2024 and detention-only status.

P11 — Records inquiries. September 9 request/appeal documents, an outgoing email referencing a separate helpful local contact, and the unverified account of an August record-status change.

P12 — Collision record. Official collision materials and Terry’s separate rebuttal. Conflicting accounts are retained; the records described here do not establish an agency connection.

P13 — Medical recovery. The personal recovery account and surgery-related messages. Clinical dates and treatment details require the corresponding primary medical records.

P14 — SDPD preservation correspondence. The written statement that units/personnel were notified to preserve responsive evidence; not proof of particular record contents.

P15 — NCIS response scope. The August 17–18, 2026 correspondence addressing current affiliation and clarifying the limited historical scope of that answer.

P16 — Attleboro response. The August 20, 2026 two-page response concerning the requested internal affairs investigation, the Department’s stated evidentiary assessment and its position on official capacity.

P17 — DoD OIG FOIA appeal acknowledgment. The August 27, 2026 letter acknowledging receipt and aggregation of two appeals, not a current-status or merits determination.

P18 — Federal claim controls. The packet and status records separating reported submissions or mailings from verified receipt and determinations.

P19 — City claim scope. The City claim materials’ separation of City conduct from County, federal, private and collision matters. Submission is attributed to Terry rather than independently confirmed in this article.