3. DOD Did Not Always Meet Statutory Notification and Internal Timeliness Requirements for Completing Military Whistleblower Reprisal Investigations

DOD did not meet statutory notification requirements to inform  servicemembers about delays in investigations for about half of military  whistleblower reprisal investigations in fiscal year 2013. However, DOD officials told us they  have not developed a tool, such as an automated alert, to proactively  ensure that they are in compliance with the statutory 180-day notification  requirement. However, we estimate that about 47 percent of the files for cases  that DOD took longer than 180 days to close in fiscal year 2013 did not  contain evidence that the investigating IG sent the required letters to  servicemembers. We found that the average investigation time for all cases that DOD (that  is, both DODIG and the service IGs) investigated and closed in fiscal  years 2013 and 2014 was 526 days. According to DOD Directive 7050.06, when the service IGs receive  reprisal complaints from servicemembers, those offices are required to  notify DODIG within 10 days; however, based on our file review, we  estimate that there was no evidence of this required notification in 30  percent of cases closed in fiscal year 2013 where the servicemember   In response, DODIG officials  filed the complaint with the service IG.noted that one of their oversight investigators was assigned to reconcile  DODIG’s open military reprisal investigations with the service’s open  reprisal investigations in fall 2013. However, DODIG does not have an implementation plan for the  expansion and has not yet taken steps to develop one. Given DOD’s stated plans to expand the case management system to the  service IGs by the end of fiscal year 2016, doing so without developing an  implementation plan that addresses the needs of DODIG and the service  IGs, and defines project goals, schedules, costs, stakeholder roles and  responsibilities, and stakeholder communication techniques, puts DODIG  at risk of creating a system that will not improve its visibility over total  workload or investigation timeliness. DODIG Established an Oversight Team to Review Service-Investigated Reprisal Complaints, but the Oversight Process Is Not Formalized

In September 2011, DODIG took steps to improve its oversight of service  IG investigations by establishing an investigator team that is solely  dedicated to the oversight review of service IG-conducted military reprisal  investigations, according to officials, but it has not formalized its process  by providing detailed guidance to its oversight team. DODIG Oversight Guidance and Instruction

DODIG provided the oversight team with limited instructions on how to  review service IG cases. Specifically, from the results of our case file review, we estimate that for  about 45 percent of service investigations closed in fiscal year 2013,  DODIG oversight worksheets were missing narrative that indicated the  investigator had thoroughly documented all case deficiencies or  inconsistencies, as required on the oversight worksheet. We also found that the files in these cases lacked documentation of the  oversight investigators’ analysis of the effect of noted deficiencies on the  outcome of the investigation. Conclusions

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. Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve the military whistleblower reprisal investigation process and  oversight of such investigations, we recommend that the Secretary of  Defense work in coordination with the Department of Defense Inspector  General (DODIG) to take the following seven actions: develop an automated tool to help ensure compliance with the  statutory 180-day notification requirement by providing  servicemembers with accurate information regarding the status of  their reprisal investigations within 180 days of receipt of an allegation  of reprisal;  issue additional guidance to investigators on how to use the case  management system as a real-time management tool, and update  and finalize the draft internal user guidance from 2012 as necessary  until the case management system is complete; working in coordination with the service IGs, develop an  implementation plan that addresses the needs of DODIG and the  service IGs, and defines project goals, schedules, costs, stakeholder  roles and responsibilities, and stakeholder communication techniques  for expansion of the case management system; issue additional guidance to formalize the DODIG oversight process; direct the services to follow standardized investigation stages and  issue guidance clarifying how the stages are defined; ensure that the mechanism it uses for feedback to service  investigators includes the criteria against which the investigation was  assessed and any deficiencies, and work with the service IG  headquarters to ensure that feedback is shared with the service  investigators; and develop and implement a process for investigators to document  whether the investigation was independent and outside of the chain of  command and direct the service IGs to provide such documentation  for review during the oversight process. Specifically, we estimated  that DOD’s median notification time was on average 353 days after the  servicemember filed the complaint, almost twice as long as the 180-day  requirement. To determine the extent to which the Department of Defense (DOD) has  met statutory notification requirements and internal timeliness  requirements for completing military whistleblower reprisal investigations,  we calculated the timeliness of cases using case data from DODIG’s case  management system for military whistleblower reprisal cases closed in  fiscal years 2013 and 2014 and compared the average timeliness to the  regulatory 180-day requirement. To determine the extent to which DOD has processes to ensure oversight  of military whistleblower reprisal investigations conducted by the service  IGs, we used our stratified random sample of 124 case files retained by  DODIG for military whistleblower reprisal cases that DODIG closed from  October 1, 2012, through September 30, 2013. 2. Further, we  found that DODIG’s system did not have record of at least 22  percent of service investigations both open as of September 30,  2014, and closed in fiscal years 2013 and 2014.
Why GAO Did This Study

Whistleblowers play an important role in safeguarding the federal government against waste, fraud, and abuse. However, reporting wrongdoing outside the chain of command conflicts with military guidance, which emphasizes using the chain of command to resolve problems. Whistleblowers who make a report risk reprisal from their unit, such as being demoted or separated. DODIG is responsible for conducting and overseeing military whistleblower reprisal investigations. GAO was asked to examine DOD's oversight of military whistleblower reprisal investigations.
This report examines the extent to which (1) DOD met statutory notification and internal timeliness requirements for completing military whistleblower reprisal investigations, (2) DODIG's whistleblower case management system supports oversight of reprisal investigations, and (3) DOD has processes to ensure oversight of service IG-conducted reprisal investigations. GAO analyzed DODIG and service IG data for cases closed in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 and cases open as of September 30, 2014, and reviewed a generalizable random sample of 124 military reprisal cases closed in fiscal year 2013.

What GAO Found

The Department of Defense (DOD) did not meet statutory military whistleblower reprisal 180-day notification requirements in about half of reprisal investigations closed in fiscal year 2013, and DOD's average investigation time for closed cases in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 was 526 days, almost three times DOD's internal 180-day requirement. In 2012, GAO made recommendations to improve investigation timeliness, and DOD has taken some actions to address those recommendations. However, based on a random sample of 124 cases, GAO estimated that there was no evidence that DOD sent the required notification letters in about 47 percent of the cases that DOD took longer than 180 days to close in fiscal year 2013. For cases in which DOD sent the required letter, GAO estimated that the median notification time was about 353 days after the servicemember filed the complaint, and on average the letters significantly underestimated the expected investigation completion date. DOD does not have a tool, such as an automated alert, to help ensure compliance with the statutory notification requirement to provide letters by 180 days informing servicemembers about delays in investigations. Without a tool for DOD to ensure that servicemembers receive reliable, accurate, and timely information about their investigations, servicemembers may be discouraged from reporting wrongdoing.
DOD's Office of Inspector General's (DODIG) newly developed case management system, which it established to improve monitoring, is separate from the service IGs' systems, limiting DODIG's ability to provide oversight of all military reprisal investigations. GAO found that DODIG's system did not have a record of at least 22 percent of service-conducted reprisal investigations that were closed in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 and investigations open as of September 30, 2014. DODIG officials stated that they plan to expand DODIG's case management system to the service IGs by the end of fiscal year 2016 to improve DODIG's visibility over investigations. However, DODIG does not have an implementation plan for the expansion, and service IG officials stated that they have unique requirements that they would like to have incorporated into the system prior to expansion. Expanding the case management system to the service IGs without developing an implementation plan that, among other things, addresses the needs of both DODIG and the service IGs, puts DOD at risk of creating a system that will not strengthen its oversight of reprisal investigations.
DOD does not have formalized processes to help ensure effective oversight of military whistleblower reprisal investigations conducted by service IGs. DODIG established an oversight investigator team to review service IG investigations, but it has provided oversight investigators with limited guidance on how to review or document service IG investigations. Specifically, GAO estimated that for about 45 percent of service investigations closed in fiscal year 2013, the oversight worksheets were missing narrative to demonstrate that the oversight investigator had thoroughly documented all case deficiencies or inconsistencies. GAO also found that these files did not include documentation of DOD's analysis of the effect of noted deficiencies on the investigation's outcome because DOD has provided limited instruction on how to review service IG cases. Without additional guidance on oversight review procedures and documentation requirements to formalize the oversight process, it will be difficult for DOD to ensure that reprisal complaints are investigated and documented consistently.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD develop a tool to help ensure compliance with the statutory notification requirement, develop an implementation plan for expanding DODIG's case management system, and issue guidance governing the oversight process, among other things. DOD concurred, but raised issues with GAO's presentation of its findings. GAO disagrees and addresses these issues in this report.