DODIG Is Generally Not Meeting Timeliness Requirements and Improvement Efforts Are Hindered by Unreliable and Incomplete Data

DODIG has taken multiple steps, in collaboration with the service IGs in  some instances, to improve DOD’s ability to process military  whistleblower reprisal cases in a timely manner. However, DOD has  generally not met statutory requirements to provide reports on completed  investigations within 180 days of the date the allegation was made or  alternatively, to provide notice to the complainant and the Secretary of  Defense. DOD Efforts to Improve Case Processing Times Have Been Hindered by Unreliable and Incomplete Data

Although DOD has taken some steps to improve the timeliness of  investigations, its efforts are hampered because DODIG does not have  key timeliness data that would allow it to identify process areas requiring  improvement or evaluate the impact of reforms. In our assessment of its data, we found that DODIG has not consistently  or accurately recorded key dates to track how long investigations take to  complete. DODIG Is Taking Steps to Address External and Internal Recommended Actions

DODIG has taken steps to improve the whistleblower reprisal process,  including acting on prior recommendations. In response, DODIG is instituting  changes to quickly assign an investigator to a case, who then makes  direct contact with the complainant and initiates an investigation based on  the standard that, “the alleged fact, if true, would raise the inference of  reprisal.”

		DOD’s Implementation of Oversight Mechanisms Is Not Yet Complete and Faces Challenges

Although DODIG has taken steps to improve its military whistleblower  reprisal program, its ability to provide oversight continues to face key  challenges due to the lack of performance metrics, outdated and  inconsistently followed guidance, and inconsistent monitoring processes  and procedures to track all reprisal allegations. The guidance related to certain  key provisions of the investigative process is unclear, leading to  inconsistent implementation among the service IGs. DODIG also has not been consistently adhering to standards regarding  the maintenance of its case files and, as a result, its case files are  generally incomplete. DODIG officials acknowledge the importance of standard case monitoring  processes and procedures, but currently lack such processes and  procedures, which may hinder their ability to consistently assess the  status of outstanding reprisal cases. Until it further  addresses the weaknesses in its monitoring practices of military  whistleblower reprisal cases and the challenges it faces in its other  oversight mechanisms, DODIG cannot be sure that it is adequately  conducting its oversight responsibilities or implementing the whistleblower  reprisal program as intended. DOD Efforts to Ensure Corrective Actions Are Taken in Substantiated Cases Are Hindered by Disconnected Investigative and Corrective Action Processes and Unreliable Data

DOD’s efforts to ensure that appropriate corrective action is taken after  investigations are completed—both for whistleblowers and against those  who reprise against whistleblowers—are hampered by disconnected  investigative and corrective action processes and the limited visibility of  corrective actions taken. DODIG and the  service BCMRs are also not consistently identifying and tracking data on  corrective action taken to undo the damage done to the complainant by  the reprisal. Further, unreliable data regarding corrective action taken  against the subject are hindering oversight of this key aspect of  whistleblower protection. Without addressing these issues, military whistleblowers  may not be getting the full protection and resolution they deserve and  DOD may not be reaping the full benefits whistleblowers could provide  the department. To assist DOD in improving oversight over the whistleblower reprisal  investigative process, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense work  in coordination with DODIG to: develop and implement performance metrics to ensure the quality and  effectiveness of the investigative process, such as ensuring that the  case files contain evidence sufficient to support the conclusions; update whistleblower reprisal investigative guidance and ensure that it  is consistently followed, including clarifying reporting requirements,  responsibilities, and terminology; and  consistently monitor the status of whistleblower reprisal investigations. In order to determine the roles and responsibilities of DODIG and the  military services in providing corrective action, including the processes  and procedures used by the Boards for Correction of Military Records  (BCMRs) to provide relief to servicemembers who were reprised against,  we reviewed applicable laws and regulations, including the Military  Whistleblower Protection Act and DOD Directive 7050.06, and spoke with  officials from DODIG, the service IGs, the three service BCMRs, and the  Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness –  Enterprise Services. We also obtained  information from the service IGs regarding command action for all cases  closed between January 1, 2009 and March 31, 2011. 2).
Why GAO Did This Study

Whistleblowers help guard the federal government against waste, fraud, and abuse. The Military Whistleblower Protection Act provides servicemembers with a means to seek relief from reprisals and to hold subjects accountable. GAO was asked to determine the extent to which the Department of Defense (DOD) has (1) satisfied statutory timeliness requirements for processing military whistleblower reprisal cases, (2) established and implemented oversight mechanisms for its process, and (3) taken corrective action in cases where the DOD Inspector General (DODIG) substantiated reprisal claims. GAO also analyzed case characteristics. GAO examined laws, regulations, and guidance documents; interviewed officials from DODIG, service IGs, service Boards for the Correction of Military Records (BCMRs), and the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; and collected and analyzed case data. GAO also conducted a detailed file review using a representative sample of cases closed between January 1, 2009 and March 31, 2011.

What GAO Found

DODIG has taken multiple steps, in collaboration with the service IGs in some instances, to improve DOD’s ability to process military whistleblower reprisal cases in a timely manner. Timeliness is important to ensure the reliability of evidence and appropriate resolution of reprisal allegations. However, DODIG has generally not met statutory requirements to report on investigations within 180 days, or to provide alternative notification. DODIG has undertaken efforts to improve timeliness by, for example, eliminating a time-consuming phase of its investigative process. However, DOD’s efforts are hampered by unreliable and incomplete data. For instance, GAO found that DODIG has not consistently or accurately recorded key dates to track how long investigations take to complete. Without key timeliness data, DODIG may have difficulty in identifying process areas requiring improvement and evaluating the impact of reforms. Further, the absence of this information limits congressional decision makers’ ability to provide oversight of DOD’s whistleblower reprisal investigative program.
DODIG has begun executing an action plan that includes acting on prior external and internal review recommendations in order to improve its oversight of the department’s whistleblower reprisal process, but implementation of this plan is not yet complete and challenges exist in three areas:
Performance metrics. DODIG has not yet established performance metrics to ensure the quality of reprisal investigations.
Guidance. DOD’s guidance related to the whistleblower program is outdated and does not reflect current investigative processes. Additionally, some of the guidance is unclear, leading to inconsistent implementation among the service IGs. Moreover, DODIG has not been consistently adhering to standards regarding the maintenance of its case files, resulting in generally incomplete files.
Case monitoring processes and procedures. DODIG lacks standard case monitoring processes and procedures, which may hinder its ability to consistently maintain visibility and assess the status of outstanding reprisal investigations including those conducted by service and component IGs.
Until it further addresses the challenges it faces in regard to oversight mechanisms, DODIG cannot be assured that it is effectively conducting its oversight responsibilities or implementing the whistleblower reprisal program as intended.
DOD’s efforts to ensure that appropriate corrective action is taken—both for whistleblowers and against those who reprise against whistleblowers—are hampered by disconnected investigative and corrective action processes and the limited visibility of the corrective actions taken. DODIG and the service BCMRs are not consistently identifying and tracking data on action taken to undo the reprisal damage done to whistleblowers. Further, unreliable data regarding corrective action taken against those found to have reprised against whistleblowers is hindering oversight of this key aspect of whistleblower protections. Without addressing these issues, whistleblowers may not be getting the full protection and resolution they deserve.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD implement procedures to track and report data on its case processing timeliness, take actions to improve oversight of its investigative process, and develop processes to ensure appropriate corrective actions are taken in substantiated cases. DOD concurred with all of GAO’s recommendations.