FirstAlerts
Crime & Courts

Tucson Man Indicted for Lying to Obtain Federal Contract Work While on Active Duty with the Air Force

A federal grand jury in Tucson has charged Davide Velarde with making false statements to secure federal contract positions with NASA, IRS, and NOAA. The case is at the charging stage, and Velarde is presumed innocent.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 25, 2026, 2:56 p.m. ET
TUCSON, Ariz. – A federal grand jury in Tucson has returned an indictment against Davide Velarde, 44, of Tucson, for making materially false statements on background investigation forms to obtain employment with federal contractors for NASA, the IRS, and NOAA, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Arizona. The indictment alleges that while Velarde was still on active duty with the U.S. Air Force, he held positions with federal contractors for the IRS and NASA after making false statements about when he would retire from the USAF. After retiring, he made additional false statements while applying to work for a federal contractor for NOAA to conceal that he had been previously fired from federal contract work. Velarde is alleged to have earned approximately $466,708 in wages from the USAF and the federal contractors between August 2021 and October 2025. “American servicemembers are held to the highest level of integrity,” said U.S. Attorney Timothy Courchaine. “This case is about protecting the honor of every other airman by holding David Velarde accountable for his alleged falsehoods.” A conviction for making false statements carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment and a fine of $250,000. An indictment is a formal accusation of conduct. This case is only at the charging stage, and the matter remains undecided.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 125 Aug 2026, 18:56current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.