	DOD Has Taken Actions to Track the Timeliness of Military Whistleblower Reprisal Investigations but Continues to Not Regularly Report on Timeliness to Congress

DODIG has taken a number of actions to improve its tracking of the  timeliness of military whistleblower reprisal investigations, including  developing an automated tool to address statutory notification  requirements. Further, in  2015 we found that DOD’s average investigation time for cases closed in  fiscal years 2013 and 2014 was 526 days, almost three times DOD’s  internal completion requirement of 180 days. To improve the timeliness of military whistleblower reprisal investigations,  we recommended in February 2012 that DOD (1) implement procedures  to track and report data on its case processing timeliness and (2) track  and analyze timeliness data to identify reforms that could aid in  processing cases within 180-day time frame. Further, DODIG took steps to track and analyze  timeliness data that could aid in processing cases within the 180-day  timeframe by compiling quarterly timeliness metrics starting in fiscal year  2014, and by updating its case management system in April 2016 to  include additional investigation milestones. Because some of these  actions were not taken until 2016, it is too early to determine whether  timeliness has improved since we last reported on the status. During our 2015 review, DODIG officials stated that they had taken  additional steps to help ensure they met the statutory notification  requirement. Timeliness Information Is Still Not Regularly Reported to Congress

In 2012, we found that although DODIG is required to keep Congress fully  and currently informed through, among other things, its semiannual  reports to Congress, DODIG was not including in these reports  information on military whistleblower case processing time, including (1)  statutorily required notifications of delays in the investigations or (2) those  exceeding DODIG’s internal 180-day completion requirement. DOD Strengthened Its Oversight of Military Whistleblower Reprisal Investigations, but Additional Actions Are Needed

		DOD Established Processes and Developed Guidance to Strengthen Its Oversight of Military Whistleblower Reprisal Investigations

In 2012 and 2015, we found that DODIG’s oversight of military  whistleblower reprisal investigations conducted by the military services  was hampered by insufficient processes, including performance metrics;  guidance; and plans. As a result, in our 2015 report we  recommended that DOD develop and implement a process for military  service investigators to document whether the investigation was  independent and outside the chain of command and direct the service IGs  to provide such documentation for review during the oversight process. Separately, in 2015 we found that DODIG had provided limited guidance  to users of its case management system on how to populate case  information into the system. However, based on our file review of  a sample of 124 cases closed in fiscal year 2013, we found that DODIG  investigators were not using the case management system for real-time  case management. DOD concurred with this recommendation and in  March 2016 issued a case management system user guide and in July  2016, a data entry guide. However, our analysis indicated that DODIG’s case management system  did not have records of at least 22 percent of service investigations both  open as of September 30, 2014, and closed in fiscal years 2013 and  2014. Standardized Investigation Stages

In 2015, we found that the DODIG and the military service IGs use  different terms in their guidance to refer to their investigations, thus  hindering DODIG’s ability to consistently classify and assess the  completeness of cases during its oversight reviews. DODIG took an important step to improve its guidance by issuing  an updated reprisal investigation guide for military reprisal investigations  for both DODIG and service IG investigators in October 2014. To improve the military whistleblower reprisal investigation process and  oversight of such investigations, in our 2015 report we recommended that  the Secretary of Defense in coordination with the DODIG, direct the  military services to follow standardized investigation stages and issue  guidance clarifying how the stages are defined. DODIG  officials noted in August 2016 that they are currently working with the  military services through an established working group to standardize the  investigation stages as an interim measure. In addition to the recommendations we made regarding establishing  corrective action reporting requirements and regularly tracking these data,  we also recommended in our 2012 report that DOD regularly report to  Congress on the frequency and type of corrective actions taken in  response to substantiated reprisal claims. Without including  information on (1) all corrective actions taken during a reporting period,  (2) outstanding corrective action recommendations, and (3) actions taken  by the services that are different than those recommended by DODIG, we  believe that DODIG’s current method of reporting does not fully address  our recommendation to report to Congress on the frequency and type of  corrective action taken in response to substantiated claims. In summary, DOD has taken actions to implement 15 of the 18  recommendations that we made to address the military whistleblower  reprisal timeliness and oversight challenges we identified in our 2012 and  2015 reports.
Why GAO Did This Study

Whistleblowers play an important role in safeguarding the federal government against waste, fraud, and abuse, and their willingness to come forward can contribute to improvements in government operations. However, whistleblowers also risk reprisal, such as demotion, reassignment, and firing.
This testimony discusses DODIG's progress in (1) taking actions to track and report on the timeliness of military whistleblower reprisal investigations, and (2) strengthening its oversight of the military services' whistleblower reprisal investigations.
GAO's statement is based primarily on information from May 2015 and February 2012 GAO reports on military whistleblower reprisal investigations. For those reports, GAO examined laws, regulations, and DOD guidance; conducted detailed file reviews using representative samples of cases closed in fiscal year 2013 and between January 2009 and March 2011; analyzed DODIG and military service data for cases closed in fiscal years 2013 and 2014; and interviewed DOD officials. GAO also determined what actions DOD had taken through August 2016 in response to recommendations made in the 2015 and 2012 reports.

What GAO Found

The Department of Defense Office of Inspector General (DODIG) has taken actions to improve its tracking of the timeliness of military whistleblower reprisal investigations in response to recommendations that GAO made in 2012 and 2015. For example, in 2012 and 2015, GAO found that DOD was not meeting its internal requirement to complete whistleblower reprisal investigations within 180 days, with cases closed in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 averaging 526 days. In response, DODIG—which is responsible for both conducting investigations and overseeing investigations conducted by the military services—took steps to better track and analyze timeliness data by developing a guide to help ensure the accurate tracking of case processing time and by updating its case management system in April 2016 to include new investigation milestones. Because these actions were not taken until 2016, it is too early to determine if timeliness has improved since GAO last reported on the status. Similarly, in 2015, GAO found that DOD had not met the statutory requirement to notify servicemembers within 180-days about delays in their investigations for about half of the reprisal investigations closed in fiscal year 2013. In response, DODIG developed an automated tool in its case management system to flag cases approaching 180 days. However, DODIG continues to not regularly report to Congress on the timeliness of military whistleblower reprisal investigations as GAO recommended in 2012. On August 31, 2016, a senior DODIG official stated that DODIG will implement this recommendation by reporting timeliness information to Congress biannually.
DODIG has strengthened its oversight of military service reprisal investigations in response to recommendations GAO made in 2012 and 2015 by establishing processes and developing guidance for overseeing investigations, among other things. For example, in 2015, GAO found that DODIG did not have a process for documenting whether investigations were independent and were conducted by someone outside the military service chain of command. In response, DODIG directed the service IGs to certify investigators' independence for oversight reviews. GAO also found in 2015 that DODIG had provided limited guidance to investigators using its case management system, limiting its utility as a real-time management system, as intended. In response, DODIG issued a system guide and a data entry guide, which provide key information on how to work with and maintain system data. However, in 2015 GAO also found that DODIG and the military service IGs used different terms in their guidance to investigators, hindering DODIG oversight of case completeness. GAO recommended that DOD direct the military service IGs to follow standardized investigation stages and issue related guidance. DODIG officials stated in August 2016 that they are working with the services to standardize investigation stages and that DODIG is willing to work with the Secretary of Defense to issue such direction. Separately, GAO found in 2012 that unreliable data on corrective actions taken in response to substantiated reprisal cases was hampering oversight and recommended that DOD regularly report to Congress on the frequency and type of corrective actions taken in response to substantiated reprisal claims. DODIG reports some corrective actions in its semiannual report to Congress, but does not include all relevant corrective actions or outstanding corrective action recommendations.

What GAO Recommends

DOD implemented 15 of the 18 recommendations GAO made to improve and track investigation timeliness and strengthen oversight of the military services' investigations, and is considering steps to implement the remaining three regarding standardized investigations and reporting to Congress.