The report says Justice Department officials referred their findings to Bar associations in Arizona and the District of Columbia for possible disciplinary action against Burke. It described his conduct as “wholly unbefitting a U.S. attorney” and “particularly egregious.”

Burke, who recently launched an Arizona-based global security company with other prominent political figures, did not respond to e-mail and phone messages.

He resigned as U.S. attorney for Arizona in August 2011 after admitting that he had divulged information to the media in what critics said was an effort to sabotage whistle-blowers critical of the Justice Department.

An Arizona Bar spokesman confirmed that an investigation of Burke is under way but would not disclose details. The state Bar regulates attorneys and issues recommendations to the state Supreme Court for discipline of those found culpable for ethical breeches.

The Inspector General report stemmed from Operation Fast and Furious, an undercover probe in which federal agents allowed hundreds of firearms to be purchased and shipped from Arizona south of the border to Mexican drug cartels.

The stated objective was to gather enough intelligence to prosecute kingpins in the smuggling business, but that notion has since been disclaimed, as an unapproved mistake, by President Obama and Justice Department administrators. Congressional critics insist it was approved — and gave lethal firepower to narcotics syndicates.

Burke, as U.S. attorney for Arizona, presided over the case and supervised prosecutors who worked with special agents at the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The investigators monitored numerous purchases by so-called “straw buyers,” but allowed the purchased AK-47s and other weapons to “walk” into Mexico. Two of the semiautomatic rifles were used during the 2010 slaying of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry west of Nogales.

Among the agents critical of Fast and Furious was John Dodson, who shared his concerns with members of Congress and in March 2011, gave an interview to CBS News. The ensuing federal investigation created a nationwide political furor.

Justice Department records have subsequently shown that Burke made frantic efforts to deflate the controversy, disputing Dodson’s assertions and telling supervisors in e-mails that guns recovered at the scene of Terry’s death had not been among the weapons allowed to “walk.”

The AK-47 in question was acquired by a straw buyer named Jaime Avila, who had been under surveillance for months. According to the inspector general’s report, Burke provided an internal memorandum to the New York Times in mid-June 2011 to incorrectly suggest that Avila was not being monitored when that weapon was purchased.

One day later, ATF agents testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Dodson told lawmakers that, in Fast and Furious, “we, the ATF, failed to fulfill one of our most fundamental obligations: to care take the public trust, in part to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.” Another agent said the operation was a “colossal failure,” and blamed the U.S. Attorney’s Office for refusing to seize guns and prosecute suspects.

When Burke was questioned by Deputy Attorney General James Cole about leaks, the IG report says, he provided vague answers and then declined to respond to questions. The report says internal investigators concluded that Burke was responsible for releasing the Avila memo and attempted to mislead his boss.

Days later, the IG report says, while already under investigation for one disclosure, Burke attempted to sabotage Dodson’s credibility by providing a classified ATF report to Fox News. That report, written by Dodson, described an earlier proposal to sell firearms to a straw buyer without making an arrest. The plan was, in fact, carried out, and Dodson allowed six guns into the hands of criminals, but he later said he regretted the operation and was merely carrying out orders.

E-mails between Burke and his subordinates show the U.S. attorney viewed Dodson as a turncoat who blew the whistle on a practice that he previously engaged in.

“Unbelievable,” Burke wrote to Patrick Cunningham, his chief criminal prosecutor. “This guy called (U.S. Sen. Charles) Grassley and CBS to unearth what he in fact was proposing to do himself. When you thought the hypocrisy of this whole matter had hit the limit already.”

Cunningham also resigned amid the scandal and exercised his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when subpoenaed by the Oversight Committee.

The inspector general concluded that, as Fast and Furious unraveled, Burke believed Justice Department officials were “throwing my office under the bus,” and decided to mount a clandestine defense through the media. It notes that he leaked the Dodson memo by sending a message from his private e-mail account to a friend, who then forwarded it to a reporter.

Frederick Hill, director of communications with the Oversight Committee, said Burke’s behavior reflects an “ugly track record of retaliating against whistle-blowers” by the Obama administration. “Leaking misleading information to reporters is just one way this administration and its political appointees try to muddy the waters when under scrutiny,” he added.

Burke became U.S. Attorney in September 2009. His government career included stints as top aide to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano in her current post, at the Governor’s Office and at the Arizona Attorney General’s Office.

Gov. Jan Brewer released the report on Thursday, announcing with it that Maj. Gen. Hugo Salazar, Arizona’s adjutant general, is preparing to retire this year after three decades of military service.

The 107-page National Guard Bureau assessment contains investigative findings from a team of military officers commissioned by Brewer after an Arizona Republic series in October documented extensive criminal and ethical violations that whistle-blowers blamed on failed discipline and a corrupt culture.

The report verified newspaper accounts of fraud, fraternization, sexual abuse, assault and numerous other crimes, along with favoritism and inconsistent discipline. However, it also concludes that commanders overall are trying to address misconduct and “have been working diligently to improve their practices.”

In a statement released with the report, Brewer declared, “It is clear that the Arizona National Guard is not ‘broken.’ The findings are not an indictment of the Arizona National Guard, nor its leadership. … Nonetheless, significant concerns were identified, and they will be remedied.”

Brewer added that the level of wrongdoing is “unacceptable,” and she directed Salazar to submit a plan for reform by May 17. “I have depended upon his leadership of the Arizona National Guard,” she added, “and will look for him to provide a steady hand and wise counsel as he transitions to planned retirement.”

However, Lt. Col. Paul Forshey, who recently retired as the National Guard’s top lawyer, or JAG officer, said the report represents a clear indictment of Guard leadership as unethical. He said he was interviewed by investigators, is aware of others’ testimony and has read the report.

“How the governor can reach the conclusion she has is beyond reason or logic,” he wrote in an e-mail.

Salazar declined comment. The report says he “acknowledged there was an ethical leadership issue” when interviewed by team members, and in January published a new conduct code for the Guard.

However, that code restricts whistle-blower activities, barring discussion of internal matters with the media. Guard members contacted on Thursday declined comment because they feared retribution.

In a letter to Brewer, Salazar described the latest assessment as “comprehensive,” adding, “In general, I concur with the majority of findings and recommendations … I believe the report shows that we are on the right track but that there is more that we can do.”

The investigation was conducted by Maj. Gen. Ricky Adams and a team of officers who interviewed 35 witnesses and pored over military records between November 2012 and February. The review team found significant weaknesses in accountability, the reporting of misconduct, administrative actions, military justice and command ethics.

Findings and recommendations were submitted to Brewer by Col. Christian Rofrano, chief counsel for the National Guard Bureau based in Virginia.

Among the key points:

Senior leaders in the Guard have engaged in ethical misconduct, especially sexual relations with subordinates, that “clearly violated” military regulations. “This misconduct created the perception that leadership lacked the moral high ground to take appropriate steps when disciplinary matters arose.”

Full-time soldiers and airmen who committed serious wrongdoing rarely suffered military punishment. Instead, they were allowed to quit their jobs and remain in the National Guard. “Thus the misconduct would continue to permeate the good order and discipline of the organization.”

Prior to 2009, the Arizona Guard did not conduct military courts-martial because of a shortage of funds and a lack of judges. Systemic problems blocked commanders from meting out severe non-judicial punishment.

Victims of sexual abuse said their complaints were neglected or covered up. “Identified victims of sexual assault and harassment stated that they had been victimized twice: Once by the perpetrator and once by the leadership that was unable to address their needs.”

Ethical and criminal violations were “prevalent” among non-commissioned officers who abused their authority and committed fraud that included recruiting graft and forgeries of military records.

The recent culture of the Arizona Guard “did not encourage members to report misconduct,” and those who did were hindered by retaliation from above. “They were specifically told to ‘get on board’ or ‘quit making waves.’” That problem was exacerbated by “a lack of trust in the inspector general and legal offices,” which are supposed to protect victims and whistle-blowers.

Because the Guard does not track civilian criminal cases involving personnel, some soldiers and airmen accrued three or four drunken-driving convictions with no military consequences.

The report recommends new disciplinary policies and procedures, a revision of the Arizona Code of Military Justice, additional training in ethics and leadership, assignment of an advocate to work with victims of sexual abuse or reprisal, and greater coordination with civilian law enforcement.

State Sen. Debbie McCune Davis, D-Phoenix, who recently called for legislative hearings, said the report “validates concerns I’ve heard from many Arizona Guardsmen.”

“There is a fundamental problem with the organization,” she added. “The governor needs a plan of action to repair it. The question is whether Salazar is the one to develop it.”

Findings released Thursday do not identify perpetrators but list more than 200 individuals accused of past military offenses. That includes a dozen Guard members who were given honorable or general discharges even after being convicted in a drug-smuggling conspiracy.

The report’s overall contents mirror earlier reporting by The Republic. Using Guard records, the newspaper documented drug-smuggling, embezzlement, substance abuse, paintball attacks on civilians, drunken driving and other offenses. It also described how soldiers and airmen who reported wrongdoing became targets of retaliation.

As part of its review, the assessment team surveyed Guard personnel. About half of the respondents described morale as high. Nearly half called for improved leadership ethics, especially regarding fraternization, abuse of authority and fraud. Forty-five percent said favoritism is apparent.

Four out of 10 soldiers and airmen said leaders do not adhere to core values of the military.

There are about 8,000 Guard personnel. Of 2,176 who completed the survey, 15 told of being victimized by an unreported sexual assault within the prior year; 79 told of sexual harassment; 158 said they were victims of discrimination; more than 400 reported racist or sexually offensive displays.

Investigators said they met with numerous victims of adultery between supervisors and subordinates. “Each story was compelling in its impact on the families and the units involved,” they wrote. “Most disturbing was the apparent lack of discretion exhibited by service members that blatantly violated fraternization policies.”

“Fraternization, when engaged in by senior leaders, lays the groundwork for harassment … and creates a permissive environment where misconduct can occur,” the report said.

A segment of the findings addressed Salazar’s decision to fire Brig. Gen. Michael Colangelo as head of the Air Guard last August after Colangelo dismissed two aviation commanders. A colonel in charge of Predator drone operations was ousted after his pilots allegedly collected $1.1 million in unlawful living expenses. A brigadier general was fired for his handling of a sexual-harassment incident involving the Guard’s only female F-16 pilot.

The Air Force inspector general found Colangelo culpable for abuse of authority. After Colangelo was fired by Salazar, he complained to Brewer. The National Guard Bureau report says Colangelo’s actions were not an abuse of authority because they had been approved by Salazar, military lawyers and Brewer’s staff. The report says that information was withheld from Air Force inspectors, causing them to reach an incorrect finding.