Documents highlighting complaints against Washington County Veterans Service Commission Executive Director Darren Shearlock were introduced during the Veterans Service Commission meeting last week.

During its meeting Jan. 29, the commission voted 3-1 to find merit in the initial complaint filed against Shearlock.

Among those voting in favor of the finding was Commissioner Jared Smith, who was the subject of a December letter seeking his removal that prompted the complaint against Shearlock.

The complaint was submitted to the commission anonymously, disputing a letter Shearlock submitted to the Washington County Common Pleas Court. The complaint states the court filing seeking Smith’s removal was “untruthful and (lacks) pertinent or relevant information” and could improperly influence a decision to remove Smith “for cause” under what they stated was Ohio Revised Code 5901.03.

In a Dec. 1 letter addressed to Washington County Common Pleas Court Judges Mark Kerenyi and John Halliday, Shearlock wrote that he was seeking Smith’s removal “in my capacity as the Executive Director of the Washington County Veterans Service Commission” pursuant to Ohio Revised Code 5901.03.

In the letter, Shearlock alleged that Smith’s “repeated hostility, false accusations, confrontational behavior, and intimidation have significantly impaired the Commission’s ability to serve Washington County veterans.” He further wrote that Smith “frequently demonstrates difficulty recalling decisions, discussions, and information” and “consistently behaves as though he possesses unilateral authority.”

Shearlock’s letter alleges that Smith pressured staff to prioritize claims for personal acquaintances and cited two examples, including a December 2024 request involving a veteran living out of state and a November request involving the widow of a veteran and relative of David Brown, who later filed against Shearlock.

Shearlock wrote that such actions “undermine the integrity of our services, create conflicts of interest, and erode public trust.”

Complaints against Smith appeared in the commission’s meeting agenda for Dec. 23. Shearlock confirmed there were multiple formal complaints submitted to Common Pleas Court against Smith.

Following the Dec. 23 meeting, the initial complaint against Shearlock was submitted to the commission. The original complaint alleges that letters dated Dec. 1, 3 and 4 were submitted to the court under official commission letterhead and signed by three commissioners and Shearlock. According to the complaint, the letters were “mostly copied and pasted from a single source,” despite statements made during the Dec. 23 meeting that the letters were written independently.

The complaint further asserts that the justification for Smith’s proposed removal was based on allegations he used profanity and behaved in a confrontational manner. According to the letter, the alleged cause was identified as Smith’s language only after public comment, with veterans Commissioner Tim Gillenwalters allegedly quoted in the complaint as saying, “We can’t have a commissioner use the F-bomb every other word.”

The complaint further disputes that characterization, stating that any alleged profanity occurred in executive session and arguing that “anything said in executive session is private and should not be discussed in a public forum nor included in public documents.”

Additional complaint materials regarding Shearlock were submitted, including an addendum to the original complaint signed by 20 members of the veteran community. The addendum cites emails obtained through a public records request it says show Shearlock drafting removal letters on behalf of former Executive Director Robert Fitzgerald and encouraging edits. The addendum alleges this contradicts other concerns raised in Shearlock’s letter.

A separate complaint submitted by Brown, who identified himself as a veteran and Washington County taxpayer, disputes how his family member’s case was characterized in Shearlock’s court filing. Brown wrote that he contacted Smith after experiencing delays while assisting his aunt, the widow of a Korean War veteran, and denied requesting preferential treatment.

“For the record, I did not nor would I ask for my aunt’s case to be prioritized above others,” Brown wrote, stating his questions were limited to whether processing delays were typical and what was causing what he described as an overwhelmed office.

Brown’s complaint also asserts that identifying details from his aunt’s application were improperly included in a public document, arguing that the matter had been discussed in executive session and should have remained confidential. He wrote that he ultimately chose to work directly with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, stating, “I have simply lost confidence in this office.”

Brown also cited Shearlock’s military background as a concern, writing that Shearlock’s training in psychological operations meant he was “literally trained to distort facts, manipulate people, leverage media and weaponize information.” Brown characterized the letters and related actions as bearing “some of the earmarks of a psy ops campaign,”

Shearlock, responding to allegations raised in complaint materials, said one submission improperly cited his military background as evidence against him.

“While I was on active duty for over 20 years, I was a member of the 4th Psychological Operations Group, which is a special operations military unit that has a proud history of serving our nation,” Shearlock said. “It is disgusting that someone would try to use this as an attack against me. It is never okay to accuse someone of wrongdoing because of a successful military career.”

Following an executive session Jan. 29, the commission voted 3-1 to find merit in the complaint against Shearlock and advance the matter to a formal review process. Commissioner Larry Proctor cast the lone dissenting vote. Commissioners then unanimously approved referring the matter to the Washington County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, which will handle the next phase, including formally notifying Shearlock of the allegations and providing him an opportunity to respond with legal counsel.

Prosecutor Nicole Coil described the vote as “very preliminary” and emphasized that due process must be followed before any determination is made.

Amber Phipps contributed to this article.