Mudofaa vazirligi hushtakbozlik dasturi - Department of Defense Whistleblower Program

Samolyotlarni xarid qilish hushtak chalish zamonaviy mudofaa haqidagi hushtakbozlik dasturini ishga tushirdi.

The Mudofaa vazirligi hushtakbozlik dasturi ichida Qo'shma Shtatlar a hushtakboz ichida himoya qilish dasturi AQSh Mudofaa vazirligi (DoD), bu orqali DoD xodimlari hushtakdoshlar huquqlari bo'yicha o'qitiladi. The Bosh inspektor Ushbu majburiyat, qisman, xabar berganlarni himoya qilish bo'yicha federal topshiriqni bajaradi. Shuningdek, u boshqaradi Mudofaa razvedkasining jamoatchilikka oid xabarlarini himoya qilish Dastur (DICWP), uchun pastki missiya sifatida razvedka hamjamiyati.^[1] Bosh inspektor Mudofaa Jinoyat qidiruv xizmati qisman bog'liq bo'lgan jinoiy tekshiruvlarni ham olib boradi Qui Tam aloqadorlar.

Yaqin tarix

Xabar beruvchilar noqonuniy xatti-harakatlarni oshkor qilishadi, firibgarlik, isrofgarchilik va suiiste'mol Bu kelajakda hukumatning ishdan chiqishiga yo'l qo'ymaydi.^[2] Ammo keyin hushtakbozlar qasos olish uchun "boshliqlari tomonidan xoin, palto va yolg'onchi sifatida ifloslangan va ta'qibga uchragan, jazolangan yoki ishdan bo'shatilgan" bo'lishi mumkin.^[2] Mudofaa vazirligi hushtakbozlik dasturi tobora ko'proq moliyaviy favqulodda vaziyatlar sababli AQShning milliy xavfsizligiga tahdidni bartaraf etishga yordam beradigan ma'lumotlarga e'tibor qaratmoqda:

Endi, hozirgi sharoitda, bu firibgarlik, isrofgarchilik va suiiste'mol haqida. Hushtak chalish bizga tizimdan pul qayerda oqayotganini aytib berishi mumkin. Hozirgi iqtisodiy inqirozdan oldin ham Pentagon rahbariyati federal qarz endi iqtisodiy muammo emas, balki milliy xavfsizlikka tahdidmi yoki yo'qligini muhokama qilar edi.^[2]
-Dan Meyer, Whistleblowing & Transparency direktori, AQSh Mudofaa vazirligi Bosh inspektor idorasi.

2009 yilda, AQSh Mudofaa vazirligi Bosh inspektori idorasi Whistleblowerni himoya qilish dasturini eng ustuvor vazifa sifatida maqsad qilib qo'ygan. 20 yildan ortiq vaqt mobaynida DoD IG Departamentning harbiy xizmatchilari, fuqarolik ishchilari va mudofaa pudratchilari ishchilari bilan bog'liq bo'lgan hushtakbuzarlarga qarshi repressiya ayblovlarini o'rganib chiqdi. Axborot maqolalari, plakatlar va brifinglar orqali DoD IG jamoatchilikni hushtakbozlik dasturlari to'g'risida xabardorligini sezilarli darajada oshirdi. Shuningdek, Kongress a'zolariga hushtakbozlarning himoyasini kuchaytirishga qodir bo'lgan qonunchilik to'g'risida ma'lumot berildi. Nizomga kiritilgan o'zgartishlar ularning qo'llanilishini kengaytirdi va xabar berganlar uchun himoya vositalarini kengaytirdi. Garchi bir nechta qonunlar turli toifadagi xodimlarni qamrab olsa-da, Bosh inspektor tomonidan amalga oshirilgan har bir federal hushtakbozlik to'g'risidagi nizom orqali ishlaydigan umumiy mavzu mavjud. Kongress DoD IGga xabar beruvchi tomonidan so'rovlar va tekshiruvlarni o'tkazish yoki nazorat qilishni ishonib topshirdi. jazo ayblovlar.^[3]

DoD IG, hushtakbuzarlarni himoya qilish dasturlari shafqatsizlar huquqlari bo'yicha DoD xodimlarini o'qitishda muvaffaqiyat qozonishini ta'minlashga majburdir. Bu taxmin qilinayotgan qoidabuzarliklar bo'yicha tezkor va puxta tergovni ta'minlash orqali potentsial repressorlarga to'sqinlik qiladi. Shuningdek, u repriz qilinganlarga davo beradi. Tergovning o'z vaqtida o'tkazilishi - bu repressiya vaziyatlari murakkabligi sababli davom etayotgan muammo, ammo DoD IG o'z vaqtida va sifatli tekshirishlar uchun etalon bo'lishga qaror qilganligini ta'kidlaydi. firibgarlikka, isrofgarchilikka va suiiste'mollarga qarshi hushtak chalish. 2010 yil birinchi yarmi davomida DoD IG shafqatsizlar uchun jinoiy javobgarlikka tortish va yuqori lavozimli rasmiylar bilan bog'liq 432 ishni yopdi. Jinoiy javobgarlikni to'liq tergov qilish uchun ishni asoslash stavkasi 20 foizni va yuqori lavozimdagi qonunbuzarliklarni tergov qilish uchun 15 foizni tashkil etdi. Asosiy voqealarga quyidagilar kiradi:

• Xodimlar sonining 54 foizga o'sishi (2009 yil may oyida vakolatli) tergov davrining qisqarishi bilan bog'liq natijalarni keltirib chiqarmoqda va shu bilan birga tezkor hal etishni talab qiladigan yuqori darajadagi ishlarda keskinlik qobiliyatini ta'minlaydi;
• Katta mansabdor ishlarning qariyb 40 foizi va fuqarolik jazosining 33 foizi Kongress va Mudofaa vazirini qiziqtirgan; Kongress manfaatlari bilan bog'liq bo'lgan harbiy repressiya ishlarining aksariyati IG xizmatlari tomonidan javob berildi;
• Tergovchilar yangi berilgan IGni boshqarish siyosati va protseduralari bo'yicha o'qitildilar ruxsat guvohlik chaqiruvnomalarini berish;
• Harbiy javobgarlikni tergov qilish boshqarmasi 2009 yil iyul oyida "Bosh inspektorning mudofaa boshqarmasining harbiy hushtakbuzarga qarshi replikatsiya da'volarini ko'rib chiqish jarayonini qayta ko'rib chiqish" deb nomlangan hisobotida DoJ OIG tomonidan berilgan 12 ta tavsiyalarni, shu jumladan qo'shimcha shtatlarni amalga oshirishda, takomillashtirilgan siyosat va protseduralar, shikoyatchilar va xizmat ko'rsatuvchi IGlar bilan aloqa o'rnatish va maxsus o'qitish xodimlari uchun ruxsat olish;
• A RAND Yaqinda Mudofaa vazirining o'rinbosari (Kadrlar va tayyorlik) bilan hamkorlikda OSD yuqori darajadagi forma zobitlarini nomzodlarni ko'rsatish jarayonini qo'llab-quvvatlovchi noxush ma'lumotlar haqida xabar berish jarayonlarini ko'rib chiqadigan tadqiqotlar yakunlandi.^[4]

DoD IG har birining ob'ektiv va o'z vaqtida hal qilinishiga sodiqdir javobgarlik shikoyati.

2011 yil davomida DCIS 138 ta murojaatlarni ko'rib chiqdi, natijada 56 ta tergov o'tkazildi. Asosiy voqealarga quyidagilar kiradi:

• 2012 yil 23 martda Lifewatch Services kompaniyasi 18,5 million dollarlik fuqarolik kelishuvini to'lash orqali kompaniyaga qarshi firibgarlik ayblovlarini hal qilishi haqida e'lon qilindi.
• Amerikalik baqqollar, Inc ishi natijasida 13,2 million dollar daromad keltirildi.^[5]
• Boeing 25 million dollar daromad keltiradigan ish.
• Northrop Grumman federal hukumatga 325 million dollar qaytarilishiga olib keladigan ish.

2011 yil 25 fevralda bosh inspektor mudofaa razvedkasi jamoatchiligi xodimlari ishtirokidagi tergov haqidagi so'nggi hisobotini e'lon qildi. Hisobot 2004 yildan boshlangan bir qator kuzatuv harakatlaridagi to'qqizinchi voqea edi. Ushbu tergov yo'nalishlari Bosh inspektorlar bilan hamkorlikda olib borilgan harakat edi. Milliy xavfsizlik agentligi va Mudofaa razvedkasi agentligi razvedka va qarshi razvedka jamoalari a'zolarini hushtakbozlardan himoya qilish.

Hozirgi kunda DoD IG-da milliy razvedka ishi bilan shug'ullanadigan razvedka jamoatchiligining fuqarolik xodimlariga nisbatan beshta repressiya va harbiy razvedka faoliyati bilan shug'ullanadigan fuqarolarga nisbatan o'nta ish bor.

DoD Whistleblower dasturining rivojlanishi

Whistleblowing - bu tarkibiy qismlardan biri Mudofaa vazirligi jami axborot xabardorligi.

DoD-ning hushtakbozlik dasturi o'zining mudofaasidan kelib chiqadi xaridlar janjallar 1980-yillarning. Haddan tashqari narxlangan ehtiyot qismlar va kam ishlaydigan qurol tizimlari haqidagi hikoyalar ommaviy axborot vositalarida ustunlik qildi. Kongress a'zolari ushbu masalalardan xavotirda edilar, ular xaridlar bilan bog'liq qonunbuzarliklarni fosh etganliklari uchun javobgarlikka tortildilar degan da'vogarlarning sabablarini himoya qildilar. Keyingi yillarda Kongress fuqarolik tomonidan ajratilgan mablag 'bilan ishlovchi xodimlarni, harbiy xizmatchilarni, ajratilgan va o'zlashtirilmagan fond xodimlarini va mudofaa pudratchilari xodimlarini hushtakbozlik faoliyati bilan shug'ullangani uchun javobgarlikdan himoya qilishga qaratilgan bir qator qonunlarni qabul qildi va o'zgartirdi.^[6]

Xaridlarni firibgarligi qonuniy va me'yoriy islohotlarni umuman qo'zg'atganda, Kongress nazorati Cherkov qo'mitasi 70-yillarning o'rtalaridagi tinglovlar federal razvedka va kontrrazvedka jamoalarida islohotlarga olib keldi. 1982 yil dekabr oyidayoq Mudofaa vaziri razvedka hamjamiyati doirasidagi shubhali faoliyat to'g'risida "biron bir xodimga nisbatan hech qanday salbiy choralar ko'rilmasligi kerak" degan buyruq bergan. O'tishidan etti yil oldin Whistleblowerni himoya qilish to'g'risidagi qonun 1989 yil, Mudofaa vazirligi federal hukumatning boshqa tarmoqlari tomonidan o'tgan o'n yil ichida olingan saboqlarni allaqachon ishlagan. Bir yil o'tgach, 1983 yilda Kongress harbiy fond bazalarida noqonuniy xatti-harakatlar haqida hushtak chalishi uchun mablag 'ajratilmagan fond xodimlariga nisbatan ta'qib qilishni taqiqlovchi qonun qabul qildi. 1986 yilda mudofaa bo'yicha pudratchi xodimlarning hushtakbozligini himoya qilishga qaratilgan birinchi nizom qabul qilindi. Ayni paytda Kongressning Harbiy islohotlar guruhi a'zolari DoD chiqindilari, firibgarliklar va suiiste'mollarga qarshi "hushtak chalishni" tanlagan harbiy xizmatchilar haqida ham tashvishlanishdi. Haqiqiy voqealardan biri, Bredli piyoda jangovar transport vositasini ishlab chiqishda ishlaydigan havo kuchlari polkovnigi bilan bog'liq. U transport vositasini ekspluatatsiya qilish sinovlari etarlicha real yoki yo'qligini ochiqchasiga ta'kidladi. Bu armiya amaldorlarini g'azablantirdi, chunki ular uni javobgarlikka qarshi qayta tayinlash bilan tahdid qildilar. Kongressning aralashuvidan so'ng uning boshqa lavozimga tayinlanishi bekor qilindi. Ushbu hushtakbozlik qiluvchi voqea 1998 yilda nomlangan filmning mavzusi bo'ldi Pentagon urushlari.

1987 yilda Kongress qo'mitasi harbiy xizmat a'zolarini hushtakbozlikdan himoya qilish bo'yicha tinglovlar o'tkazdi. Kongress a'zolariga va Bosh inspektorlarga qonunbuzarliklar to'g'risida xabar berganliklari uchun jazolanganliklarini aytgan harbiy xizmatchilarning ko'rsatmalariga va matbuotdagi xabarlarga javoban Kongress o'tdi Harbiy hushtakbozlarni himoya qilish to'g'risidagi qonun, sarlavha 10, Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Kodeksi, 1034-bo'lim. 1990-yillarning boshlarida Kongress "hushtak chalgan" harbiy xizmatchilar ruhiy salomatlikni beixtiyoriy baholash uchun yuborilayotganligi haqidagi xabarlar to'g'risida bilib, harbiylar uchun himoya choralarini kuchaytirdi. jazo. Kongressning ta'kidlashicha, ruhiy salomatlikni majburiy ravishda baholash uchun yo'nalish AQShning 10-sarlavhasi bo'yicha nomaqbul xodimlar harakati edi. 1034 va Departamentdan harbiy xizmatchilarning tegishli tartibda ishlashini ta'minlash uchun yo'nalish jarayonini tartibga soluvchi qat'iy qoidalarni amalga oshirishni talab qildi. 1996 yilda Milliy xavfsizlik agentligi mudofaa bo'yicha razvedka agentligi tomonidan mualliflik qilgan birinchi hushtakbozlikni himoya qilish bo'yicha ko'rsatmani faol ravishda chiqardi. Xuddi shu yili AQSh maxsus maslahatchilar idorasi ijro etuvchi hokimiyat idoralariga federal hukumat tarkibida ajratilgan mablag'larni etkazuvchilarga yordam berish uchun ombuds tizimini yaratishni taklif qildi.

DoD Whistleblower dasturi bugun

Aviatsiya texnikasi va uning jangchilar xavfsizligiga ta'siri, shuningdek, mudofaa haqidagi xabarlarni tashvishga solmoqda.

Ushbu tasavvurni amalga oshirish uchun IG doimiy ravishda o'z dasturlarini qayta ko'rib chiqadi, qonunchilikka o'zgartirishlar kiritish zarurligini baholaydi va barcha toifadagi xabar beruvchilar uchun mavjud bo'lgan himoya to'g'risida xabardorlikni kengaytiradi. Kelajak uchun muhim bo'lgan ba'zi masalalar qatoriga quyidagilar kiradi: 32-sonli harbiy texnik xodimlarni himoya qilish, AQShning maxsus maslahatchilar idorasining 2302-bo'limini kengaytirish (v) bo'lim bo'yicha sertifikatlashtirish ishlari va razvedka hamjamiyati tarkibidagi ajratilgan fond xodimlari uchun himoya vositalarini takomillashtirish. DoD IG shirkatlarning xizmatini va ahamiyatini tan oladi va ularning oshkor etilishi oxir-oqibat Departamentga, soliq to'lovchiga va eng muhimi - Amerikaning jangchilariga qanday foyda keltiradi va departament tarkibida xabar beruvchilarning himoya choralarini ilgari suradi. DoD IG faqat samarali ijro etish va ishonchli ta'lim orqali DoD xodimlari o'zlarini qulay his qilishlari uchun muhitni yaratishi mumkin, ular javobgarlikdan qo'rqmasdan chiqindilar, firibgarliklar va suiiste'mol masalalarini ko'tarishadi.^[7]

DoD IG har doim hushtak chalishni rag'batlantirgan va hisobot berishni tanlaganlarga berilgan himoya choralarini qo'llab-quvvatlagan. firibgarlik, chiqindilar va suiiste'mol qilish. DoD IG tarkibida Bosh inspektorning Aloqa va Kongress bilan aloqalar bo'yicha yordamchisi hushtakbozlik va shaffoflik bo'yicha direksiyani nazorat qiladi (DW&T ), bu Bosh inspektorga maslahat, maslahat va nazorat qilish imkoniyatini beradi. Bosh inspektorning ma'muriy tergov bo'yicha o'rinbosariga xabar bergan shaxsning da'volarini ta'minlash vazifasi yuklatilgan jazo ob'ektiv va o'z vaqtida hal etiladi.

• 2011 yil oxirigacha DoD IG yangi tashkil etilgan Whistleblower Reprisal Tergov Direktsiyasiga qarshi harbiy repressiya tekshiruvlari va fuqarolik repressiyasi bo'yicha tekshiruvlarni birlashtirdi.^[8] Bosh inspektorning ma'muriy tergov bo'yicha o'rinbosari idorasida. Ushbu direktsiyalarning birlashtirilishi DoD IG-ga tergov jarayonlarida samaradorlik va izchillikni oshirishga imkon berdi.

Ilgari rahbar o'rinbosari:

• Fuqarolik jazosini tergov qilish (CRI) direktsiyasi,^[9] AQSh bilan kelishilgan holda ishlash Maxsus maslahat xizmati, DoD tomonidan ajratilgan fondning fuqarolik ishchilari tomonidan berilgan javobgarlik to'g'risidagi da'volarni ko'rib chiqadi va tekshiradi.
• Harbiy repressiya tergovlari (MRI) direktsiyasi^[10] harbiy xizmatchilar, DoD mablag'larini o'zlashtirmagan jamg'arma xodimlari va DoD pudratchilari tomonidan berilgan hushtakbuzarlarni repressiya qilish to'g'risidagi da'volarni tekshirish uchun qonuniy javobgarlikka ega.

Qayta tashkil etishdan tashqarida deputatning boshqa to'g'ridan-to'g'ri hisobot idorasi qoldi:

• Katta mansabdor shaxslarni tergov qilish (ISO) direktsiyasi^[11] kerak bo'lganda CRI va MRI mutaxassislari asosida repressiya ishlarini olib boradi, ISO esa Bayroq xodimlari va Oliy ijroiya xizmatining a'zolari tomonidan huquqbuzarliklar to'g'risidagi da'volarni tekshiradi.

Jinoyat ishi bo'yicha tergov

WRI AQSh harbiy xizmatlari va mudofaa agentliklari tomonidan AQSh harbiy xizmatining a'zolari, o'zlashtirilmagan jamg'arma xodimlari va DoD pudratchilari tomonidan Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlarining kodeksining 10-bandiga binoan va Amerika Reinvestmenti tomonidan amalga oshirilgan hushtakbuzarni ayblash to'g'risidagi da'volar bo'yicha olib borilgan tekshiruvlarni o'tkazish va ko'rib chiqish uchun javobgardir. Qayta tiklash to'g'risidagi qonun. WRI qo'shimcha ravishda harbiylar Kongress a'zosi yoki IG bilan aloqa qilishlari cheklanganligi haqidagi da'volarni tekshiradi. WRI shuningdek, DoD tomonidan ajratilgan fondning fuqarolik ishchilari va xususan mudofaa razvedkasining jamoat ishchilari tomonidan berilgan repressiya haqidagi da'volarni o'z xohishiga ko'ra tekshiradi. Va nihoyat, WRI 6490.1-sonli "Qurolli Kuchlar a'zolarining ruhiy salomatligini baholash" yo'riqnomasida ko'rsatilgan protsessual buzilishlarni tekshirishni tekshirish va ko'rib chiqish uchun javobgardir. DoD IG departamentning hushtakbozlikdan himoya qilish dasturini repressiya tekshiruvlarining o'z vaqtida va sifatini oshirib, federal hukumat modeliga aylantirishga sodiqdir. So'nggi ichki va tashqi sharhlarga javoban, DoD IG yaqinda DoD IG va harbiy xizmatlarga yuborilgan hushtakbuzarlarning repressiya shikoyatlarining ko'payib borishi uchun o'ndan ortiq qo'shimcha tergovchilarni yolladi.

Misol

Kongressga yarim yillik hisobot, 2012 yil 1 apreldan 30 sentyabrgacha, 2012

2012 yil davomida, Departamentga repressiya, Kongress a'zosi yoki IG bilan muloqot qilishni cheklash va ruhiy salomatlikni baholash bo'yicha protsessual tartibsiz yo'l-yo'riq bilan bog'liq jami 1069 ta shikoyat kelib tushdi va jami 513 ta shikoyat yopildi.

• Ikki dengiz piyodalari korpusining fuqarolik mansabdorlari bo'ysunuvchi o'z qo'mondoni va shtab-kvartirasi dengiz piyodalari korpusining sport bo'limiga xavfsizlik nuqsonlari va piyodalarning noto'g'ri tayyorgarligi to'g'risida xabar berishganidan so'ng, bo'ysunuvchining repressiya bo'yicha ishining o'rtacha ko'rsatkichidan past bo'lgan dastlabki hisobotiga ta'sir ko'rsatdi.

• Harbiy-havo kuchlari polkovnigi va usta serjant harbiy-havo kuchlari zaxirasi a'zosining a'zoning himoyalangan aloqasi uchun javobgarlikka tortilishini rad etishdi. A'zo teng imkoniyatlar bo'yicha ofitserga boshqa bir guruh a'zosi yillik o'quv safari davomida nomaqbul irqiy izoh berganligini da'vo qilgan. Tuzatish choralari kutilmoqda.

• Armiya qo'mondoni askarni armiyadan beixtiyor ajralish va askarning himoyalangan aloqasi uchun javobgarlik sifatida harbiy xizmatni uzaytirilishini rad etish bilan qo'rqitdi. Harbiy IGga qo'mondonning vakolatini suiiste'mol qilgani haqida shikoyat qilgan. Bundan tashqari, qo'mondon maslahat paytida askarga IG bilan aloqa qilishni taqiqlovchi askarga izoh berdi. Tuzatish choralari kutilmoqda.

• Dengiz flotining leytenant qo'mondoni, bo'ysunuvchiga javobgarlikka tortilgan bo'ysunuvchiga javoban, bo'ysunuvchining faoliyati to'g'risidagi hisobotni pasaytirish uchun qo'shimcha xat taqdim etdi. buyruq zanjiri leytenant komandir tomonidan xodimlarga nisbatan yomon munosabatda bo'lish. Tuzatish choralari kutilmoqda.

• Harbiy-havo kuchlarining katta bosh serjanti bo'ysunuvchining himoyalangan aloqasi uchun javobgarlik sifatida bo'ysunuvchining ishga qabul qilish paketida harakat qilishni kechiktirdi, shu sababli bo'ysunuvchini topshirish muddatini o'tkazib yubordi. Bo'ysunuvchi, otryad komandiri uchuvchiga oyiga bir hafta ishlashga ruxsat berib, uchuvchidan qolgan vaqtini hujjatlashtirishni talab qilmasdan firibgarlikka yo'l qo'ygan deb da'vo qilgan. Katta usta serjant tuzatish choralari ko'rilguncha nafaqaga chiqdi.

• Jamg'arma mablag'larini taqsimlanmagan direktori, bo'ysunuvchining teng imkoniyatlar idorasiga direktor tomonidan gender kamsitishlari va ta'qib qilinishi ayblovi bilan himoyalangan aloqasi uchun javobgar sifatida ishchining ishini pasaytirib, baho berdi. Sud qarorini chiqaruvchi mansabdor shaxs sub'ektning faoliyatini baholashni bekor qilishni va uning o'rnini shikoyat qiluvchining ish faoliyatini aniq aks ettiradigan yangi ishlash bahosiga almashtirishni va mas'ul boshqaruv mansabdor shaxsiga tegishli intizomiy jazo choralarini ko'rishni buyurdi.

Avvalgi hisobot davrida yopilgan hushtakbozlik holatlari bo'yicha tuzatuvchi choralar 2012

• Armiya polkovnigi qo'mondonlikdan chetlatildi, noqulay baholash to'g'risidagi hisobot va bo'ysunuvchi askarni ketma-ket xorijga sayohat qilishdan bosh tortgani va IG shikoyati uchun bo'ysunuvchiga havola qilingan baholash hisobotini berganligi uchun general ofitserga tanbeh berildi.

• Armiya mayori IG shikoyatini bergani uchun javobgarlikka ko'tarilgan ofitserning lavozimini ko'tarish bo'yicha tavsiyasini pasaytirgani uchun bosh ofitserga tanbeh oldi. Xuddi shu holatda, armiya podpolkovnigi, bo'ysunuvchi ofitserni IG shikoyatini berishni cheklashga urinish uchun pastga tushirilgan baholash hisobotini oldi.

• Armiya kapitani harbiy xizmatchini shoshilinch ruhiy salomatlikni baholash uchun yuborishda protsessual talablarga rioya qilmaslik uchun og'zaki maslahat va trening oldi.

• Harbiy-havo kuchlari zaxirasidagi polkovnik polkovnikga nisbatan teng imkoniyatli shikoyat yuborish uchun bo'ysunuvchini qayta o'qitish talabini rad etganligi uchun bosh ofitserga tanbeh oldi. Xuddi shu holatda, Havo Kuchlari zaxirasi bosh serjanti, harbiy xizmatchini lavozimini ko'tarishni tavsiya qilmagani uchun ogohlantirish xati oldi, chunki aviatsiya bosh serjantiga qarshi teng imkoniyatli shikoyat yubordi.

• Harbiy yozuvlarni tuzatish bo'yicha havo kuchlari kengashi yaqinda iste'fodagi podpolkovnikga 2011 yil iyul oyida rahbariyat xodimi tomonidan ofitserga qarshi qilingan nojo'ya harakatlar bilan bog'liq asosli repressiya tekshiruvini ko'rib chiqqandan so'ng, ularga yordam berdi. Harbiy yozuvlarni tuzatish bo'yicha Harbiy-havo kuchlari kengashi zobitni ofitserni tanlash to'g'risidagi ma'lumotnomaga o'zgartirish kiritishga qaror qildi; ish natijalari to'g'risidagi hisobot va lavozimni ko'tarish bo'yicha tavsiyalar shakli bekor qilindi va uning yozuvlaridan o'chirildi; va ofitser o'z yozuvidagi yuqoridagi tuzatishlar bilan maxsus tanlov kengashiga javob berishi.

Kongressga yarim yillik hisobot, 2011 yil 1 oktyabrdan 31 martgacha, 2012

2012 yil birinchi yarmi davomida DoD IG tergov va nazorat funktsiyalarini takomillashtirishni amalga oshirdi, shu jumladan shikoyatlarni qabul qilish jarayonini soddalashtirish, yanada mustahkam treninglar o'tkazish, yozma siyosat va protseduralarni qayta ko'rib chiqish va hushtakbuzarlarni ta'qib qilishni nazorat qilish funktsiyalarini kuchaytirish.

• Harbiy havo kuchlarining bosh usta serjanti bo'ysunuvchiga IG va bosh qo'mondon serjant tomonidan ayollarga nisbatan qo'mondonlik tarafdorligi zanjiriga da'vo qilgani uchun javob sifatida uning ishi to'g'risidagi hisobotni pasaytirdi. Bosh magistr serjant asosli repressiya da'vosiga javoban yozma nasihat oldi.

• Armiya Milliy Gvardiyasi bo'linmasining qo'mondoni, Havo kuchlarining faol qo'riqchisi va zaxiradagi a'zosini ruhiy salomatlikni baholash uchun, a'zoning himoyalangan aloqalari uchun javobgarlikka tortdi. A'zo bo'linma a'zosi spirtli ichimliklarni iste'mol qilgan holda davlat transport vositasini boshqarganligi va uning bo'linmasi davlat sotib olish kartasidan noto'g'ri foydalanganligi haqida da'vo qilgan. Bundan tashqari, bo'linma komandiri va tibbiyot xodimi ruhiy salomatlikni baholash uchun zarur tartib-qoidalarni bajarmagan. Nihoyat, bo'linma qo'mondoni o'rinbosari a'zoni Kongress a'zosi bilan muloqot qilishni chekladi. Tuzatish choralari kutilmoqda. Izoh: Shikoyat ham jazo choralari, ham cheklovlar haqida; ikkinchisi cheklash bo'yicha alohida tergov sifatida statistikaga kiritilmagan.

• Harbiy-havo kuchlari ustasi serjanti bosh serjantning bo'ysunuvchi unga boshqa aviatsiya xodimi bilan professional bo'lmagan munosabatda bo'lganligi to'g'risida xabar berganiga ishonganligi uchun javobgarga bo'ysunuvchiga tanbeh berdi. Tuzatish choralari kutilmoqda.

• Harbiy havo kuchlari serjanti qo'mondonga o'qituvchi talabalarga bo'lajak harbiy havo kuchlari saralashi to'g'risida noto'g'ri ma'lumot berganligi va shu bilan talabalarning test natijalarini noto'g'ri oshirganligi haqida xabar bergani uchun noqulay hisobot oldi. Qo'mondon tuzatish choralarini ko'rishdan oldin iste'foga chiqdi; ammo, shtab serjantiga harbiy yozuvlarni tuzatish bo'yicha Kengashga yordam so'rab murojaat qilish huquqi berilishi haqida maslahat berildi.

• Armiya podpolkovnigi armiya zaxirasidagi mayorga boshqa bir zobitni qo'mondonlik zanjiri va IGga qarshi ta'qib qilish shikoyati uchun javobgarlikka qarshi noqulay hisobot berdi. Podpolkovnik tuzatish choralari ko'rilguncha armiyadan iste'foga chiqdi. Armiya zaxirasidagi mayorga yengillik uchun Harbiy yozuvlarni tuzatish bo'yicha Kengashga murojaat qilish huquqi berilishi to'g'risida maslahat berildi.

• Dengiz flotining praporshigi subordinatorni qo'mondonlik zanjiri, teng imkoniyatli ofitser, IG va Kongress a'zosiga qarshi huquqbuzarlik bo'yicha shikoyatlari uchun javobgarni lavozimidan chetlashtirdi. Tuzatish choralari kutilmoqda.

Dori vositalari / tuzatish choralari ko'rildi 2012

• Armiya serjanti birinchi darajali IG shikoyatlari uchun bir nechta askarlarni noma'lum noqulay xodimlar harakati bilan qo'rqitgani uchun general zobitga tanbeh berdi.

• Ikki armiya qo'mondoni, agar bo'ysunuvchilar IGga shikoyat qilsalar, sudsiz jazo bilan tahdid qilganliklari uchun bosh ofitserdan tanbeh oldilar. dushmanona ish muhiti.

• Armiya shtab serjanti IGga buyruq pensiya tayyorlashga xalaqit berayotgani to'g'risida xabar berdi. Serjant shikoyat uchun javob sifatida noqulay baholash hisobotini oldi. Reyting bo'yicha amaldorlarga bosh ofitser tanbehlari berildi.

Bosh inspektor to'g'risidagi qonunning 4a qismi bosh inspektordan "Mudofaa vazirligi dasturlari va faoliyatiga tegishli amaldagi va taklif qilingan qonunchilik va me'yoriy hujjatlarni ko'rib chiqishi" va ushbu qonunlar yoki qoidalarning iqtisodiyot va samaradorlikka ta'siriga tegishli tavsiyalar berishini talab qiladi. Departament tomonidan boshqariladigan yoki moliyalashtiriladigan dasturlar va operatsiyalarni boshqarishda yoki bunday dastur va operatsiyalarda firibgarlik va suiiste'mol qilishning oldini olish va aniqlashda "DoD IGga Kongress tinglovlari va brifinglarida ishtirok etish orqali Kongressga ma'lumot berish imkoniyati beriladi.

Oldinga

• Firibgarlik, isrofgarchilik, suiiste'mol qilish va noto'g'ri boshqarish to'g'risida hisobotlarni takomillashtirish bo'yicha DoD IG tashabbusi doirasida biz yaqinda Umumjahon razvedka aloqa tizimida veb-sayt joylashtirdik. DoD IG jismoniy shaxslarga maxfiy ma'lumotlar bilan bog'liq ma'lumotlarni oshkor qilish uchun samarali vositalarni taqdim etishga sodiqdir. Veb-sayt halollik va samaradorlik bo'yicha Bosh inspektorlar kengashi tomonidan belgilangan eng yaxshi amaliyotlarni o'z ichiga oladi va oshkor qilayotgan shaxslarga yordam berish va yo'naltirish uchun batafsil ma'lumotlarni taqdim etadi.

• DoD IG ishonch telefoni aloqa materiallarini tarqatishga yo'naltirilgan ishchi guruhni tashkil etdi. Ishchi guruh hozirgi tarqatish usullarini takomillashtirishga e'tibor qaratadi va global tadqiqotlarni kengaytirish uchun ijtimoiy tarmoqlarning imkoniyatlarini ko'rib chiqadi.

• Departamentning hushtakbozlarni himoya qilish dasturini o'zgartirish bo'yicha majburiyatiga binoan, ishonch telefoni xabar beruvchiga javobgarlik to'g'risidagi da'volarni qabul qilishga yana bir bor e'tibor qaratdi. DoD IG yo'riqnomalarning samaradorligi va o'z vaqtida bajarilishini oshirish uchun javobgarlik bilan bog'liq shikoyatlarni ko'rib chiqish jarayonlarini o'zgartirdi.

Fuqarolik javobgarligini tekshirish

4CRI Tekshiruvlar urush olib borish qobiliyatiga ziyon etkazadigan qaror qabul qilish to'g'risida ma'lumot beruvchi manbalarni himoya qiladi. (Mudofaa rasmlari fotosurati).

2011-2012 moliyaviy yiligacha Bosh inspektor harbiy va fuqarolik javobgarligini tekshirish uchun alohida idoralarni yuritgan. 2004 yil yanvar oyida DoD IG Mudofaa tomonidan ajratilgan mablag 'bilan ishlaydigan xodimlarning hushtakbozliklariga qarshi kurashish uchun CRI tashkil qildi. DoD xodimlarining ikkita toifasi alohida tashvishga tushdi: (1) potentsial xaridlar bo'yicha firibgarlik to'g'risidagi ma'lumotlarga ega bo'lgan xodimlar va; (2) Mudofaa razvedka idoralarida va harbiy bo'limlarning razvedka idoralarida ishlaydigan xodimlar. CRI foydalanadi "sarlavha 5" uning tekshiruvlari uchun standartlar. The Ichki ishlar boshqarmasi (2002), Bosh inspektor orqali Graf Devani, mablag 'ajratilgan fuqarolik xodimlariga hushtakbozlik bilan yordam beradigan Ombuds dasturini tashkil etgan birinchi idora. Ushbu idora o'z e'tiborini tergovga emas, balki tushuntirish ishlariga cheklab qo'ydi. CRI shunga o'xshash modeldan foydalanadi, ammo hushtakbozlikni targ'ib qilish uchun tekshiruv tarkibiy qismini qo'shdi. 2007 yilda Ichki daromad xizmati Ombudsman ofisini yaratdi. Uning sobiq direktori sifatida Dan Meyer 2001 yil may oyida bo'lib o'tgan intervyusida, idora ortidagi g'oya "generalni muvofiqlashtirishdir. [bosh inspektor] ga [mudofaa vazirligi tarkibidagi qonunbuzarliklar to'g'risida [Federal hukumatga] ma'lumot keltiradigan odamlarni himoya qilishga imkon beradigan siyosat. ] "Deb nomlangan.^[12] Meyer tushuntirish berganida, Bosh inspektor haqiqatni ko'rib chiqadi, Kongress tomonidan qabul qilingan qonun xodimning motivini ko'rib chiqmasligini hisobga olib, qonunni qo'llaydi. Keyin Bosh inspektor xulosa qiladi. Savdo, ta'lim va ichki xavfsizlik boshqarmalari, shuningdek, jamoat tashkilotlari tomonidan ajratilgan fuqarolik ishchilariga qarshi jinoiy javobgarlikka tortish to'g'risidagi xabarlarni tekshirish va tekshirish uchun idoralar tashkil etdi.

CRI-ning dastlabki tergovi davomida agentlik mansabdor shaxslari maxfiy ma'lumotlarga kirish huquqini to'xtatib turish va Kongress a'zolari va Kongress a'zolari bilan aloqa o'rnatgandan so'ng xavfsizlikni rasmiylashtirishni bekor qilish choralarini ko'rganmi-yo'qligini tahlil qildi. 11 sentyabr komissiyasi xodimlar. Boshqa bir tekshiruvda diniy kamsitishlar hushtakbuzarning xavfsizlik rasmiylashtiruvi qaroriga ta'sir etadimi yoki yo'qligini aniqlash uchun xavfsizlikni rasmiylashtirish to'g'risida qaror qabul qilindi. CRI ham ikkitadan birini qo'llab-quvvatladi Intelligence Community Whistleblower-ni himoya qilish to'g'risidagi qonun 1992 va 2009 yillar orasida ochilgan tergovlar. Ushbu tergovlar davomida CRI xavfsizlik kodeksini qabul qilish jarayonini ko'rib chiqish uchun birinchi protokolni ishlab chiqdi, Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Kodeksi 5-son.^[13]

1978 yildagi Bosh inspektor to'g'risidagi qonunga binoan (97-252-sonli Davlat qonuni tahririda), DoD OIGga DoD xodimlarining qonunlar, qoidalar yoki qoidalarning buzilishi yoki noto'g'ri boshqarish, mablag'larning qo'pol isrofgarligi to'g'risidagi shikoyatlarini tekshirish bo'yicha keng vakolat berilgan. yoki vakolatni suiiste'mol qilish (Qarang: §7 (a), IG to'g'risidagi qonun). Kongress, shuningdek, DoD xodimiga bunday shikoyat bilan murojaat qilgan xodimga nisbatan jazo choralarini ko'rmasligi kerakligi to'g'risida qaror qabul qildi (qarang: § 7 (c), IG qonuni). Ushbu keng vakolatli vakolat asosida, DoD OIG, OSC himoyasi bilan ta'minlangan va (masalan, razvedka hamjamiyati a'zolari) fuqarolar tomonidan ajratilgan fond xodimlaridan olingan hushtakbozlik uchun javobgarlik to'g'risidagi da'volarni tekshirish vakolatiga ega. CRI 2003 yilda DoD tomonidan ajratilgan fuqarolik jamg'armasi xodimlari repressiyadan himoya izlashi mumkin bo'lgan muqobil vositalarni taqdim etish uchun tashkil etilgan. Bu AQSh maxsus maslahatchisi bilan kelishilgan holda amalga oshiriladi. CRI DoD tomonidan ajratilgan jamg'arma xodimlarini, shuningdek OSCga murojaat qilgan va DoD razvedkasi va kontrrazvedka xodimlarini cheklanmagan himoyasini ta'minlash maqsadida tashkil etilgan.

CRI DoD tomonidan ajratilgan fond xodimlariga yordam bergan bir nechta joylar mavjud. Birinchidan, CRI da'vo qilingan repressiya yoki qonun, qoida va / yoki qoidalarni buzganligi to'g'risida shikoyat yozmoqchi bo'lgan xodimlar uchun ma'lumot va yordam beradi. Ikkinchidan, CRI, OSC yurisdiksiyasiga ega bo'lmagan, javobgarlikni qaytarish uchun murojaat qilgan DoD razvedka va kontrrazvedka xodimlariga yordam berish uchun mavjud. Uchinchidan, CRI Bosh inspektorga ICWPA doirasidagi qonuniy majburiyatlarini bajarishda Kongressni "dolzarb masalalar" to'g'risida xabardor qilishda yordam beradi (qarang §8H, IG qonuni). Bundan tashqari, CRI Bosh inspektorning OSC tomonidan boshqariladigan Sertifikatlash dasturi 2302 (s) bo'limining ichki advokatidir. CRI, DoD tomonidan fuqarolik tomonidan ajratilgan jamg'arma xodimlarining barcha toifalarini qonun yoki ichki tartibga solish orqali oshkor qilish uchun javobgarlikka tortilishini da'vo qilmoqda. Tashkil etilganidan beri CRIning harakatlari Maxfiy maslahatchilar idorasidan himoya so'rab xabar beruvchi shaxslarga maslahat berishga va qonun, qoida va / yoki reglament buzilganligi to'g'risidagi ma'lumotlarni oshkor qilishga yordam beruvchilarga yordam berishga qaratilgan. CRI shuningdek IG to'g'risidagi qonunning 7 (a) va (c) bo'limlari bo'yicha tanlangan shikoyatlarni tekshirdi.^[14]

CRI ishining namunalari quyidagilarni o'z ichiga oladi

Kongressga yarim yillik hisobot, 2011 yil 1 apreldan 30 sentyabrgacha 2011

2011 yil ikkinchi yarmida DoD IG to'rtta asosiy missiya yo'nalishlari bo'yicha 5-sarlavhali himoyalangan ma'lumotlarni oshkor qilish bilan bog'liq ishlarni tanlashni davom ettirdi: aviatsiya texnik xizmat ko'rsatish, kontraktatsiya va xaridlar, xavfsizlikni rasmiylashtirish va razvedka operatsiyalari. 2011 yil 30 sentyabrda DoD IG-da 10 ta ochiq ish bo'lgan. Hisobot davrida Departamentga 5-sonli nom beruvchini ta'qib qilish to'g'risida 15 ta shikoyat kelib tushdi va 14 ta tergov yakunlandi. Yopilgan 14 ta tergovning bittasida javobgarlik to'g'risidagi da'volar mavjud bo'lib, natijada 7 foiz asoslash stavkasi paydo bo'ldi. DoD IG shuningdek, 434 DoD harbiy va fuqarolik ishchilari ishtirok etgan jami 34 ta hushtakbuzarlarni ogohlantirish choralarini o'tkazdi.

• DoD Component Field Office xodimi jinoiy tergovchilarga maxfiy materiallarni AQSh hukumati pudratchisi tomonidan noqonuniy ravishda o'tkazilishi haqida ma'lumot berganligi uchun javobgarlikka tortildi.

Kongressga yarim yillik hisobot, 2010 yil 1 oktyabrdan 31 martgacha, 2011

During the first half of FY 2011, DoD IG continued to select cases involving protected disclosures in five core mission areas: aviation maintenance, health and welfare of service members deployed or returning from Southwest Asia, chemical weapons safety, supply logistics, and intelligence operations. With respect to the intelligence and counterintelligence communities and matters involving security clearances, DoD IG completed five full investigations into alleged reprisals within Defense Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, Department of Army, and Department of the Navy. Other activities reviewed included alleged reprisal against sources reporting illegal technology transfers; inadequate fielding of equipment to Southwest Asia; improper medical treatment for soldiers and civilians returning from combat theaters; and violations of the Federal Acquisition and Joint Ethics Regulations. As of March 31, 2011, DoD IG had 16 open cases. During the reporting period, DoD IG received52 complaints of civilian whistleblower reprisal, accepted 12 complaints for investigation, and closed 11 investigations. Of the 11 investigations closed, three contained substantiated allegations of reprisal resulting in a 27 percent substantiation rate. Sixty-two percent of open DoD IG civilian reprisal cases involved intelligence and counterintelligence communities and matters involving security clearances; the remaining cases involved procurement fraud sources. DoD IG also conducted a total of 15 whistleblower reprisal outreach events attended by 255 DoD military and civilian personnel. Four outreach events (27 percent) were conducted for intelligence and counterintelligence community stakeholders and the remaining outreach events were conducted for supervisors and employees throughout DoD. Examples of Substantiated Civilian Whistleblower Reprisal Cases:

• An Army employee was reprised against after providing testimony to a subcommittee of the Qurolli kuchlar qo'mitasi regarding a lack of medical care afforded to DoD civilian employees injured while serving in combat zones. The report was referred to command officials with the recommendation for remedial action.

• An employee at an Army chemical munitions depot was reprised against for disclosing improperly installed chemical monitoring devices within storage igloos. The report was referred to command officials with the recommendation for remedial action.

• An Army computer scientist was reprised against after disclosing violations of the Federal sotib olish to'g'risidagi nizom and the Joint Ethics Regulation by agency officials. The report was referred to command officials with the recommendation for remedial action.

Remedies/Corrective Action Taken

• A former Army employee at an Army chemical munitions depot was reprised against for disclosing violations concerning weapons handling and an improperly initiated training exercise. The report was referred to command officials for remedial action in 2009. During the reporting period, the Merit tizimlarini himoya qilish kengashi took action on the case and ordered the employee reinstated with back pay. To promote public confidence in the integrity of DoD leadership, DoD IG conducts or provides oversight on all investigations into alleged misconduct by senior DoD officials (brigadier general/rear admiral and above, members of the senior executive service, and senior political appointees). Misconduct allegations are noncriminal in nature and typically involve ethics or regulatory violations. Most senior official investigations are conducted by specialized units within the military department IGs. DoD IG investigates allegations against the most senior DoD officials and allegations not suitable for assignment to service IGs.

Semi-Annual Report to Congress, May 1, 2010 to October 1, 2010

During the second half of FY 2010, CRI continued to select cases involving protected disclosures in five core mission areas: aviation maintenance, health and welfare of service members deployed or returning from Southwest Asia, chemical weapons safety, supply logistics, and intelligence operations. DoD IG investigated reprisal allegations involving civilian employees of the military departments and the Defense Intelligence Agency. With respect to the intelligence and counterintelligence communities, DoD IG conducted two oversight actions on Defense Intelligence Agency investigations and completed a full investigation into alleged reprisal within the Department of the Navy. Other activities reviewed included alleged reprisal against sources reporting avionics maintenance, emergency response planning, supply management, and media access violations. On September 30, 2010, DoD IG had 21 open cases and one oversight action. During the second half of FY 2010, DoD IG conducted 48 intakes, accepted five complaints for investigation, and closed 10 investigations, substantiating 4 cases of reprisal. Twenty-seven percent of open DoD IG civilian reprisal cases involve intelligence or counterintelligence activities and the remaining cases involve procurement fraud sources. Examples of substantiated civilian whistleblower reprisal cases:

• A retired electronics mechanic formerly employed at a naval agency was reprised against after disclosing improperly surveyed equipment, insufficient repair facility resources, and failures in quality assurance in an aircraft maintenance and repair program. A remedy was provided through U.S. Office of Special Counsel mediation.

• A lead safety and occupational health specialist at an Army Depot was reprised against after being perceived as a whistleblower. Management officials believed the specialist reported to the Mehnatni muhofaza qilish boshqarmasi violations of emergency response planning and training. The report was referred to command officials for remedial action.

• The chief of engineering and planning at an Army Depot was reprised against after being perceived as a whistleblower. Management officials believed the chief had report-ed problems regarding the logistics tracking infrastructure. Remedial action was taken by the commander.

Semi-Annual Report to Congress, October 1, 2009 to March 31, 2010

On March 31, 2010, CRI had 28 open cases and was providing oversight of three investigations being conducted by either Defense intelligence agencies or the military services. During the first half of FY 2010, CRI advised on 44 intakes, accepted 11 for investigation, and closed two investigations. One-third of CRI's open cases concern intelligence or counterintelligence activities, and the remaining two-thirds involve procurement fraud sources.^[4]

• An employee of a Defense agency made protected disclosures pertaining to wasteful and illegal U.S. government contracts, nogironlik bo'yicha firibgarlik, Defense Travel System fraud, and time and attendance fraud (sick leave abuse). The complainant alleged that management threatened reassignment in reprisal for his protected communications. The investigation found that the agency's actions against the complainant would have occurred absent the protected disclosure.^[15]

• A former DoD employee alleged that subsequent to making a protected disclosure regarding the security of the organization's intranet, management reprised against him by taking several unfavorable personnel actions (disapproved annual leave requests, negative comments in his annual performance appraisal, a notice of Unacceptable Work Performance and Performance Improvement Plan, and removal from federal service). The investigation found that the agency's actions against the complainant would have occurred absent the protected disclosure.^[15]

Semi-Annual Report to Congress, May 1, 2009 to October 1, 2009

• A law enforcement officer who received a lowered performance evaluation after reporting alleged safety violations at a U.S. military base guarding chemical weapons.

• A traffic management official who received a suspension after reporting alleged procurement fraud relating to transportation contracts in Europe. The official alleged that management officials suspended him and failed to promote him in reprisal for his protected disclosure concerning fraud, waste, abuse, and gross mismanagement associated with a criminal investigation into transportation contract fraud. A CRI investigation substantiated reprisal.^[16]

Semi-Annual Report to Congress, April 1, 2008 to September 30, 2008

• A civilian engineer assigned to an office engaged in developing biometrics technology alleged constructive termination in reprisal for disclosures of fraud, waste, abuse, and gross mismanagement associated with the fielding of various biometric products and systems. A DoD IG investigation substantiated reprisal.^[17]

• An infrastructure development and operations employee of an office engaged in counterintelligence alleged six acts of reprisal in response to disclosures regarding irregular management of contracts. A DoD IG investigation partially substantiated the allegations, finding abuse of authority.^[17]

Military Reprisal Investigations

Whistleblowing often raises serious separation of powers issues, requiring vigorous oversight by the Congress.

Shortly after the Military Whistleblower Protection Act was enacted, the Department of Defense Inspector General implemented a program to thoroughly and independently investigate allegations of whistleblower reprisal. The number of whistleblower cases has grown steadily over the years, from 150 in 1994 to over 550 in 2009. Of complaints that proceed to full investigation, the historic substantiation rate has been nearly 25 percent. During FY 2009, the Inspector General of the Department of Justice conducted a peer review of MRI processes and effectiveness. The resulting report included twelve recommendations for organizational, staffing, and process improvement. MRI implemented several of the recommendations immediately and pursued implementation of the remainder.^[18] The Inspector General reemphasized his commitment and focus on DoD whistleblower protections authorizing a significant staffing increase in MRI. The professional staff of 26 investigators resolves whistleblower reprisal allegations, conducts outreach and training for service IG counterparts, and establishes and revises policy to ensure DoD's implementation of whistleblower statutes fully satisfies congressional intent and affords whistleblowers every consideration and right to which they are entitled.

Complaints of whistleblower reprisal may be filed with DoD IG or a service IG. MRI predominantly receives allegations of reprisal through the Defense Hotline and Members of Congress. However, in some instances, service IGs refer allegations to MRI if the service member is serving in a joint assignment or other special circumstances exist. MRI conducts a preliminary analysis of each case to determine whether investigation is warranted. If warranted, MRI has the discretion to either conduct the investigation or forward it to the service IG for investigation.

MRI has three enabling statutes:

• Military Whistleblower Protection Act. Public Laws 100-456, 102-190, and 103-337 (codified in Title 10, United States Code, Section 1034 (10 U.S.C. 1034) and implemented by DoD Directive 7050.6, "Military Whistleblower Protection," June 23, 2000) provide protections to members of the Armed Forces who make or prepare to make a lawful communication to a Member of Congress, an Inspector General, or any member of a DoD audit, inspection, investigative or law enforcement organization, and any other person or organization (including any person or organization in the chain of command) designated under Component regulations or other established administrative procedures for such communications concerning a violation of law or regulation, gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public safety.^[19]
• Employees of Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities (NAFI). Title 10, United States Code, Section 1587 (10 U.S.C. 1587), "Employees of onappropriated Fund Instrumentalities: Reprisals", prohibits the taking or withholding of a personnel action as reprisal for disclosure of information that a NAFI employee or applicant reasonably believes evidences a violation of law, rule, or regulation; mismanagement; mablag'larni yalpi isrof qilish; vakolatni suiiste'mol qilish; yoki aholi salomatligi yoki xavfsizligi uchun katta va o'ziga xos xavf. Section 1587 requires that the Secretary of Defense prescribe regulations to carry out that Statute. Those regulations are set forth as DoD Directive 1401.3, "Reprisal Protection for Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality Employees/Applicants".^[19]
• Employees of Defense Contractors. Title 10, United States Code, Section 2409 (10 U.S.C. 2409), "Contractor Employees: Protection from Reprisal for Disclosure of Certain Information," as implemented by Title 48, Code of Federal Regulations, Subpart 3.9, "Whistleblower Protections for Contractor Employees," provides that an employee of a Defense contractor may not be discharged, demoted, or otherwise discriminated against as a reprisal for disclosing to a Member of Congress or an authorized official of an agency or the Department of Justice information relating to a substantial violation of law related to a contract.^[20]

Examples of MRI investigations include

Semi-Annual Report to Congress, March 31, 2011 to September 30, 2011

As of September 30, 2011, DoD had 366 open cases involving allegations of whistleblower reprisal filed by military service members, defense contractor employees and nonappropriated fund employees. During the reporting period, Dod IG and service IGs received 299 complaints of whistleblower reprisal and closed 100 cases. Of the 100 cases, 48 were closed after analysis determined further investigation was not warranted, and 52 were closed after full investigation. DoD IG continued its expanded outreach, communication, and training to whistleblower stakeholders and service IG counterparts, conducting 17 events reaching 404 military IGs (a total of 24 instruction hours).

• An Army Reserve sergeant major deployed to Iraq received an unfavorable Non-Commissioned Officer Evaluation Report and was denied end-of-tour award in reprisal for alleging to his security manager in the United States that members of his unit were not properly safeguarding classified hardware and information.

• An Army Reserve battalion commander reprised against an Army Reserve captain by downgrading his promotion potential recommendation on the captain's Officer Evaluation Report. The captain had reported to his brigade commander that the battalion commander had engaged in several instances of unprofessional conduct and exhibited poor judgment and leadership skills. In addition, DoD IG substantialized that the battalion commander and the battalion transportation team officer in charge made verbal and written comments intended to discourage or restrict unit members from communicating with and inspector general.

• An Army Reserve captain threatened to suspend a staff sergeant's security clearance in response to the staff sergeant's chain of command IG complaints that unescorted U.S. Army soldiers, who were not U.S. citizens and did not have appropriate security clearances, were allowed to enter a secure facility housing detainees in Afghanistan.

• An enlisted Army Reserve recruiter received an adverse efficiency report in reprisal for complaining to the command IG about his chain of command's interference with his retirement training. The service member ultimately completed the retirement training and petitioned the Army Board for Correction of Military Records for relief.

• An Army captain, in collusion with his first sergeant, threatened a soldier with nonjudicial punishment for making protected communications to EO and IG officials. The chain of command also removed the soldier in reprisal for her protected communications.

• A Marine Corps IG refused to process a sergeant's complaint regarding abuse of authority while restricting the sergeant from filing the complaint with higher level IGs.

Semi-Annual Report to Congress, October 1, 2010 to March 31, 2011

DoD IG investigates or oversees allegations of military, non-appropriated fund, Defense contractor whistleblower reprisal; and allegations of improper referral of members of the Armed Services for mental health evaluations. As of March 31, 2011, DoD had 351 open cases involving allegations of whistleblower reprisal filed by military service members, Defense contractor employees, and non-appropriated fund employees. About 77 percent of those cases were received by service IGs. Results of service IG investigative work will be forwarded to DoD IG for final approval. During the reporting period, DoD IG and service IGs received 302 complaints of whistleblower reprisal and closed 237 cases. Of the 237 cases, 188 were closed after preliminary inquiry determined further investigation was not warranted, and 49 were closed after full investigation. Of the 49 cases investigated, 10 contained one or more substantiated allegations of whistleblower reprisal. DoD IG has statutory responsibility for oversight review of all cases of military whistleblower reprisal regardless of origination, and reviews conducted by the service IGs and DoD IG. DoD IG continued its expanded outreach, communication, and training to whistleblower stakeholders and service IG counterparts, reaching 241 military IGs with a total of 131 instruction hours. Examples of Substantiated Military Whistleblower Reprisal Cases:

• An Air Force Reserve officer, serving as a weather officer supporting Afghanistan predator operations from a stateside location, was removed as assistant flight commander, threatened with removal of his specialty designation, and threatened with the denial of active duty orders in reprisal for reporting his supervisor's time and attendance violations to the commander. The officer was granted active duty orders and his specialty code was not removed.

• A Navy officer received an adverse fitness report in reprisal for making protected communications to members of his command chain and his congressional representative concerning inappropriate conduct and misuse of government property. The officer has petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records for corrective action.

• An Army National Guard warrant officer piloting helicopters in Iraq received an unfavorable officer evaluation report in reprisal for his complaints to an inspector general concerning flying safety and unfair treatment, and for a prior complaint of reprisal to the Defense Hotline.

• An Army platoon sergeant reprised against four of his soldiers by threatening them with administrative separation from the Army for complaining to the IG about his leadership style. The soldiers have all been retained.

Semi-Annual Report to Congress, May 1, 2010 to October 1, 2010

During this reporting period, DoD IG and service IGs received 347 complaints of whistleblower reprisal and closed 359 cases. Of the 359 cases, 294 were closed after preliminary analysis determined further investigation was not war-ranted, and 65 were closed after investigation. Of the 65 cases investigated, 11 (17 percent) contained one or more substantiated allegations of whistleblower reprisal.

• An Army staff sergeant received an unfavorable Non-Commissioned Officer Evaluation Report in reprisal for reporting to members of her chain of command that there was a perception of favoritism and a possible inappropriate relationship between two non-commissioned officers. The evaluation report was rescinded. In addition, responsible management officials were counseled.

• An Air Force colonel was denied a position for which she was eminently qualified by a general officer in her chain of command after she complained to higher ranking officials that her Active Guard Reserve Review Board was not conducted in accordance with established law and policy. Corrective action is pending.

• A Marine Corps sergeant was disenrolled from an education program, received an unfavorable fitness report, and denied a promotion for making protected communications to an inspector general and Equal Employment officer of gender discrimination and sexual harassment. The sergeant petitioned the promotion board and was subsequently promoted to staff sergeant. One responsible management official received a non-punitive letter of caution; the second was reassigned.

• A Navy commander received an unfavorable fitness report in reprisal for her protected communication to her command about the unauthorized movement of Defense Logistics Agency materials from a Navy ship. Corrective action is pending.

Semi-Annual Report to Congress, October 1, 2009 to March 31, 2010

On March 31, 2010, DoD IG had 382 open cases involving allegations of whistleblower reprisal filed by military service members, Defense contractor employees, and non-appropriated fund employees. About 75 percent of those cases are processed by service IGs prior to being forwarded to DoD IG for final approval. During the reporting period, DoD IG and the service IGs received 271 complaints of whistleblower reprisal and closed 274 cases. Of the 274 cases, 220 were closed after preliminary analysis determined further investigation was not warranted and 54 were closed after investigation.^[4]

A culture of whistleblowing empowers a diverse Qurolli xizmatlar in correcting its wrongs.

• An Army master sergeant was referred for a mental health evaluation, removed from the "First Sergeant" course, and given an unfavorable noncommissioned officer evaluation report in reprisal for reporting to an IG that her rater had threatened her, and for informing her chain of command of potential violations of height/weight standards by command members. In addition to the substantiated reprisal finding, the investigation found that the commander violated procedural requirements of DoD Directive 6490.1, "Mental Health Evaluations of Members of the Armed Forces", by not affording the master sergeant her rights.^[4]

• An Air National Guard colonel demanded a senior master sergeant promise he would not make any more complaints to an IG as a condition for approving the senior master sergeant's reenlistment authorization request. The threat to withhold the favorable personnel action was in reprisal for the senior master sergeant's complaint to an IG that the colonel would only agree to his reenlistment if he retired from his technician job.^[21]

• An Army Reserve staff sergeant received an unfavorable Non-Commissioned Officer Evaluation Report in reprisal Investigations for filing complaints with IGs and military equal opportunity advisors alleging he was ordered to falsify inventory records and was subjected to a hostile work environment.^[15]

• An Air Force senior master sergeant received an unfavorable enlisted performance report in reprisal for alleging to his commander and a member of Congress that his supervisor was having an adulterous relationship and had engaged in fraudulent activity.^[21]

Semi-Annual Report to Congress, April 1, 2009 to September 30, 2009

• A Defense contractor employee working as the family advocacy program manager received a fiveday suspension without pay and an unfavorable employee performance review in reprisal for her disclosures to an IG regarding a violation of the contract's provisions by company and government employees. As a result of the substantiated findings, the Office of the Secretary of the Army directed that the complainant be awarded $25,000 and receive preferential consideration in competing for a current position opening.^[22]

• A Navy lieutenant received two unfavorable fitness reports because he complained to an IG that his commander violated Navy physical fitness assessment requirements, and pressured the command fitness leader to accept for the record results of his personally administered test. The commander received a letter of counseling and a letter of instruction on the provisions of Title 10 U.S.C. 1034.^[23]

• A Navy petty officer alleged he received non-judicial punishment and an unfavorable fitness report in reprisal for contacting an inspector general about alleged fraternization within the unit. A Navy investigation substantiated the allegations.

Semi-Annual Report to Congress, April 1, 2008 to September 30, 2008

• An Air Force technical sergeant received a downgraded performance report and was denied an end-of-tour award in reprisal for disclosing to his Group commander an improper relationship between two members within the wing. The responsible officials, a lieutenant colonel and a chief master sergeant, were issued letters of counseling.^[24]

A well run whistleblower protection program empowers the Commander-in-Chief and his or her senior executive leadership in the management of the Executive branch.

MRI has developed efficient procedures to conduct preliminary inquiries and investigations to ensure that all whistleblower reprisal complaints are thoroughly addressed, and in a timely manner. The Military IGs have established similar procedures. MRI works closely with the Military IGs on all aspects of the investigative process. The preliminary inquiry entails an in-depth interview with the complainant, followed by fact-finding and analysis of available documents and evidence. The investigator determines whether the allegations meet the criteria for protection under the governing statute. Investigators analyze the evidence and form a conclusion based on a dalillarning ustunligi.^[14]

The investigator writes a Report of Preliminary Inquiry that documents the answers to the following three questions:

1. Did the complainant make a communication protected by statute?
2. Was an unfavorable action subsequently taken or withheld?
3. Was the management official aware of the communication before taking the action against the complainant?

The investigator presents the results of the preliminary inquiry to a Complaint Review Committee, composed of the five senior MRI managers. If the MRI Complaint Review Committee determines that sufficient evidence exists to pursue a full investigation of the reprisal allegations, MRI will conduct an on-site investigation that includes sworn interviews with the complainant, the management officials responsible for the unfavorable personnel actions taken, and any other witnesses with relevant knowledge. In a full investigation, a fourth question must be answered:

(4) Would the responsible management official have taken the same action absent the complainant's protected communication?

Although the service IGs may also independently receive and investigate reprisal allegations, Title 10 U.S.C. 1034 charges the DoD IG with a critical oversight role—to approve any decision made by a service IG that investigation of military whistleblower reprisal is not warranted and to approve the results of all military whistleblower reprisal investigations conducted by service IGs. MRI has the primary authority and responsibility to conduct investigations concerning allegations of reprisal against military members, nonappropriated fund employees and Defense contractor employees. Military Members now have the option of directly contacting their Military Department Inspector General or reporting their complaints to the DODIG Directorate for Military Reprisal Investigations through the Defense Hotline.^[25]

Examples military service investigations

Semi-Annual Report to Congress, April 1, 2009 to September 20, 2009

• An Air Force lieutenant colonel and a chief master sergeant downgraded a technical sergeant's enlisted performance report and denied him an end of tour award in reprisal for his communication to the group commander about an improper relationship in the unit. As a result of the substantiated findings, the lieutenant colonel and chief master sergeant received letters of counseling and the lieutenant colonel was denied a decoration upon his retirement.^[26]

• An Army investigation determined that two officers reprised against an Army National Guard first lieutenant by not recommending him for an award for his service in Iraq and issuing him a relief for cause officer evaluation report for his communications to Members of Congress. The two officers received letters of reprimand.^[26]

• An Air Force colonel reprised against a major by removing her from her position as the medical group complaints officer for allegedly leaking information to an IG. The colonel also "restricted" the members of his command from making protected communications by issuing an order that no one was to go outside the chain of command with any complaint. The colonel received a letter of reprimand and was directed to post a notice in the medical clinic that members of his command could communicate with IGs without fear of reprisal from him or members of his staff.^[26]

Semi-Annual Report to Congress, October 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009

• A Navy lieutenant alleged he was given an unfavorable evaluation, reassigned, referred for an involuntary mental health evaluation, and threatened with discharge in reprisal for contacting an inspector general after his chain of command denied his request for captain's mast. A Navy investigation substantiated he was reassigned and threatened with discharge in reprisal for making a protected communication.^[27]

• A Navy petty officer alleged he received non-judicial punishment and an unfavorable fitness report in reprisal for contacting an inspector general about alleged fraternization within the unit. A Navy investigation substantiated the allegations.^[27]

• An Army sergeant alleged his first sergeant recommended him for an Article 15 in reprisal for reporting unsafe conditions during a dala mashqlari to an inspector general. An Army investigation substantiated reprisal against the first sergeant.^[27]

• An Army Reserve staff sergeant alleged he was referred for an involuntary mental health evaluation in reprisal for reporting allegations to an inspector general that a supervisory administrator created a hostile work environment. An Army investigation substantiated that the administrator reprised against the staff sergeant by providing misleading information about the sergeant, which instigated the referral for an involuntary mental health evaluation.^[27]

Rigorous whistleblower investigations support a culture of excellence at all levels of military command.

Semi-Annual Report to Congress, April 1, 2008 to September 30, 2008

• A Navy chief petty officer was relieved of her duties as the operations chief and assigned watch duties not commensurate with her rank in reprisal for reporting to the EO Advisor that her supervisor, a Navy civilian, made sexually offensive comments to her. The Navy also substantiated as reprisal that the supervisor provided false information to the commander and executive officer that resulted in two adverse fitness reports for the chief petty officer. The supervisor, who was the official responsible for the acts of reprisal, resigned his position before action was taken against him.^[24]

Semi-Annual Report to Congress, October 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008

• A Navy commander alleged he was relieved from his position, issued a non-punitive letter of instruction, received an unfavorable fitness report, and denied an end-of-tour award in reprisal for reporting his commander's attempts to misuse Government funds. A Navy investigation substantiated all reprisal allegations. No corrective action was taken due to the retirement of the responsible official.^[28]

• An Army sergeant first class alleged he was issued a letter of reprimand, relieved of his position, and reassigned to a position not commensurate with his rank in reprisal for contacting a Member of Congress. An Army investigation substantiated the allegations. The responsible official, an Army major, was issued a letter of counseling.^[28]

• An Air National Guard master sergeant alleged she was threatened with relief from her position in reprisal for reporting alleged sexual misconduct to the chain of command. An Air Force investigation substantiated the allegation.^[28]

• An Air Force captain alleged he was issued letters of counseling in reprisal for reporting a hostile work environment that included discrimination due to his age and nationality. An Air Force investigation substantiated that the captain received one letter of counseling in reprisal for his protected communications.^[28]

Semi-Annual Report to Congress, April 1, 2007 to September 30, 2007

• A Navy lieutenant alleged he was issued unfavorable fitness reports in reprisal for reporting fitness program violations to an IG. An MRI investigation substantiated the allegation. The responsible official, a Navy commander, was counseled and received a Letter of Instruction.^[29]

• An Army National Guard sergeant major alleged he was issued an unfavorable noncommissioned officer evaluation in reprisal for reporting violations of the UCMJ and fiscal laws to his chain of command. An MRI investigation substantiated the allegation.^[29]

• An Air Force staff sergeant alleged two master sergeants gave him a letter of reprimand because they believed he reported problems in the deployed unit to the wing commander. An Air Force investigation substantiated the reprisal allegation and also substantiated that the master sergeants restricted the staff sergeant from making protected communications by threatening to take punitive action against him.^[29]

• An Air Force master sergeant alleged he was issued an unfavorable enlisted performance report in reprisal for reporting security violations and program mismanagement to his chain of command. An Air Force investigation substantiated the allegation. No corrective action was taken due to the retirement of the responsible official.^[29]

Oversight of Component Inspectors General

MRI continually strives to strengthen guidance and provide support to their service IG counterparts. For the past several years, MRI has expanded its outreach programs for training military and civilian employees working in IG offices throughout the Department. In addition to training workshops at the DoD IG headquarters, MRI conducts outreach nationwide. Recent training efforts have been attended by over 450 IG staff and investigators and include: the Joint and Combatant Command IG Course, workshops and briefings at the Air Force World Wide IG Conference, the Air Combat Command IG Symposium, the Army Medical Command IG Conference, and the National Guard's Central, Western, and Southeastern Regional IG Conferences.^[26] Additionally, MRI investigators and team leaders have daily interaction with military counterparts seeking assistance with reprisal investigative and policy issues. During the last year, the Department of Justice IG conducted a peer review of MRI processes and effectiveness. While the DoJ report findings were generally positive about MRI's implementation of the military whistleblower program, the report included 12 recommendations for organizational, staffing, and process improvement. MRI implemented several of the recommendations immediately and is actively pursuing implementation of the remainder.

But the October 1998 revision to Title 10, United States Code, Section 1034 (10 USC 1034), the "Harbiy hushtakbozlarni himoya qilish to'g'risidagi qonun ", contained significant changes in how the Military Department Inspectors General and DODIG will process reprisal allegations. The most significant change is that Military Department IGs now have the authority to grant the protections of 10 USC 1034 to reprisal allegations they receive. This means that military members are no longer required to submit reprisal allegations directly with the DODIG for coverage under 10 USC 1034. Military Department IGs must notify the DODIG within ten working days of receiving reprisal allegations. The DODIG Directorate for Military Reprisal Investigations will maintain a system to track those notifications. Military Department IGs will then conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine whether the allegations merit investigation under 10 USC 1034. All decisions by Military Department IGs not to investigate allegations of military Whistleblower reprisal are subject to the review and concurrence of the Director, DODIG Directorate for Military Reprisal Investigations. As before, all final reports of investigation under 10 USC 1034 must be approved by the Director, DODIG Directorate for Military Reprisal Investigations.

DoD component Inspectors General may accept reprisal allegations from nonappropriated fund employees. DoD Directive 1401.3, "Reprisal Protection of Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality Employees/Applicants", revised on October 16, 2001, provides that DoD Component Inspectors General may accept reprisal allegations from nonappropriated fund employees. The Directive further provides that the Component Inspectors General must forward the reprisal allegations to the DODIG for resolution.

Defense Contractor Protection (DCP)

Defense contractor employees seeking whistleblower reprisal protection must continue to report allegations directly to the DoDIG. The Defense Hotline is designated to receive reprisal complaints on behalf of the Directorate for Military Reprisal Investigations. They will determine if a complaint meets the criteria required to initiate a reprisal investigation. The MRI will notify the complainant in writing of their decision and tell the complainant specifically what action will be taken regarding the complaint.

Examples of DCP's work include

Tinglashlar

• In December 2011, Marguerite Garrison, Deputy Inspector General for Administrative Investigations, testified on "Whistleblower Protections for Government Contractors" before the Moliyaviy va pudrat nazorati bo'yicha kichik qo'mita, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.^[30]

Semi-Annual Report to Congress, October 1, 2011 to March 31, 2012

• During this period, the Department received 318 complaints of whistleblower reprisal, restriction and procedurally improper mental health referrals through the Defense Hotline and other sources, and closed 285. 215 were dismissed due to insufficient evidence; three withdrawn; and 67 were closed following full investigation.
• DoD IG also started an initiative to ensure that derogatory information involving terminated contractor employees is reported to the Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office. This initiative was coordinated with the Defense Security Service Office of Inspector General and as a result, DoD IG will provide copies of disclosures to the DSS IG when a contractor employee with a security clearance is terminated for misconduct pursuant to the disclosure. This initiative will prevent contract employees from obtaining positions with other defense contractors. The chart in the bottom left depicts the increase in contractor disclosures per year to include 81 in 2009, 203 in 2010, and 240 in 2011. During the first half of FY 2012, there have been 110 disclosures.
• DoD IG will implement a program to comply with Section 818 of Public Law 112-818, "Detection and Avoidance of Counterfeit Electronic Parts". This law requires DoD to adopt policies and procedures for detecting and avoiding counterfeit parts in its own direct purchases, and for assessing and acting upon reports of counterfeit parts from DoD officials and DoD contractors.

Semi-Annual Report to Congress, April 1, 2012 to September 30, 2012

Qui tam whistleblowers continue to provide DCIS with actionable information leading to the prosecution of fraud cases. Prominent on the DCIS docket during this reporting period were the following qui tam cases:

• An investigation of Accenture, LLC for allegedly accepting improper payments amounting to kickbacks from hardware and software vendors and other alliance partners in exchange for Accenture's recommendation of the vendors' products to government end users. The two relators who brought the case to the attention of the Department received a combined $14 million of Accenture's $63 million settlement with the U.S. government.
• An investigation of ATK-Thiokol for the alleged sale of defective illumination flares to the Army and Air Force. The defect could cause the flares to prematurely ignite creating a significant safety hazard to U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. ATK agreed to pay the U.S. government $21 million to resolve allegations of fraud in this qui tam lawsuit. The relator will receive a separate payment of $4.5 million from ATK, and the company also agreed to provide $15,967,160 of in-kind services to retrofit existing flares to meet contract specifications. DoD IG requires command and management officials to provide a response regarding corrective action taken within 60 days of issuing a report. At the 90-day point, the report is transferred to the director, whistleblowing and transparency for tracking.

Reviewing Security Clearance Decisions

Review of security clearance decision-making as a pretext for reprisal is essential to the protection of intelligence and qarshi razvedka xodimlar.

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) has the authority to investigate adverse security clearance and access decisions as part of its broad responsibility for investigating allegations that individuals suffered reprisal for making disclosures of fraud, waste and abuse to certain authorities. These responsibilities derive from both the Inspector General Act of 1978 and various statutory provisions applicable to specific classes of individuals. These laws were enacted and amended various times since 1978, and while similar in many respects they are not uniform in the protections they afford. However, they do provide a quilt of legislative provisions organized by the status of individual alleging they were reprised against as a result of their protected activity.^[31]

Providing Protection Modeled on title 5

For civilian employees of intelligence agencies who are exempted from OSC jurisdiction, Title 5 states that the heads of agencies should implement internal policies regarding merit systems principles and whistleblower reprisal protections. Specifically, these agencies are required to use existing authorities to take any action, "including the issuance of rules, regulations, or directives; which is consistent with the provisions of [title 5] and which the President or the head of the agency...determines is necessary to ensure that personnel management is based on and embodies the merit system principles." (5 U.S.C. 2301(c) ).^[32] DoD Reglamenti 5240.1-R, "Qo'shma Shtatlarga ta'sir ko'rsatadigan DoD razvedka komponentlari faoliyatini tartibga soluvchi protseduralar" (1982 yil 11-dekabr), razvedka tarkibiy qismlarini o'z ichiga olgan DoD agentliklari rahbarlaridan xodimlarga nisbatan hech qanday nojo'ya choralar ko'rilmasligini ta'minlashni talab qiladi. "shubhali faoliyat" haqida xabar berish ("qonunlarni, har qanday Ijroiya buyrug'ini yoki Prezidentning ko'rsatmalarini yoki amaldagi DoD siyosatini buzishi mumkin bo'lgan razvedka faoliyati tashkil etadigan yoki u bilan bog'liq bo'lgan har qanday xatti-harakatlar" deb ta'riflanadi).^[33]

Noqulay xodimlar xavfsizligi to'g'risidagi qarorlarni (UPSD) jazolash uchun bahona sifatida ko'rib chiqish

CRI, xususan, Mudofaa razvedkasi jamoatchiligining harbiy xizmatchilari va xodimlariga keng qamrovli himoya qilishni taklif etadi Mudofaa razvedkasining jamoatchilikka oid xabarlarini himoya qilish Dastur, chunki CRI repressiya uchun bahona sifatida xavfsizlik bo'yicha qarorlarni qabul qilishni ko'rib chiquvchi etakchi federal tergov tashkiloti hisoblanadi.^[34] Bu Bosh inspektorning vakolati ostida amalga oshiriladi, emas Whistleblowerni himoya qilish to'g'risidagi qonun. 5-sarlavhaning 2302-qismida, noqonuniy xatti-harakatlar fosh etilgandan so'ng, shafqatsizlar uchun javobgarlikni keltirib chiqarishi mumkin bo'lgan o'n ikkita taqiqlangan xodimlar amaliyoti keltirilgan.^[35] Ishni tugatish, lavozimini almashtirish yoki lavozimidan tushirish kabi jiddiy harakatlar ushbu 5 nomli nojo'ya harakatlar qatoriga kiritilgan; ammo xavfsizlik xavfsizligini ta'minlash bo'yicha qarorlarni qabul qilish va boshqa noxush xodimlarning xavfsizligi to'g'risidagi qarorlar ushbu hujjat bilan qamrab olinmagan Whistleblowerni himoya qilish to'g'risidagi qonun. Xavfsizlik ma'lumotlarini olish va saqlashga razvedka va kontrrazvedka ishi mutlaqo bog'liq bo'lganligi sababli, javobgarlik uchun xavfsizlik choralarini ko'rish uchun qaror qabul qilishni qayta ko'rib chiqish zarur. Mudofaa razvedkasi hamjamiyati hushtakbozlar. Shu sababli, CRI xavfsizlikni aniqlash to'g'risidagi javobgarlikni IG qonuni orqali tekshiradi, bu cheklanmagan. razvedka va kontrrazvedka idoralari uchun imtiyozlar. Shunga ko'ra, xavfsizlik uchun ruxsatnomani bekor qilish qasos uchun bahona sifatida ko'rib chiqilishi mumkin. Xavfsizlikni ta'minlash bo'yicha qarorlarni ko'rib chiqqan tergov to'g'risidagi hisobotlarida CRI mas'ul menejment xodimi tomonidan qilingan salbiy harakatni "xodimlarning xavfsizligini noqulay aniqlash" (USPD) deb tasniflaydi.^[36] va keyin uni ko'rib chiqishda 5 nomli standartlarni qo'llaydi. UPSD ta'rifiga kiritilgan xatti-harakatlarga qo'shimcha ravishda, CRI xavfsizlik rasmiylashtiruvining to'xtatilishini hamda agentlikning markaziy sud muassasasiga bekor qilish, rad etish yoki to'xtatib turish bo'yicha tavsiyalarni tekshiradi. xavfsizlik ruxsatnomalari mumkin bo'lgan noqulay xodimlar xavfsizligini aniqlash. O'z-o'zidan amalga oshirilmasa ham, CAF uchun to'xtatib turish va tavsiyalar CRI tomonidan ko'rib chiqiladi, chunki ular xavfsizlikni aniqlash orqali repressiya uchun bahona bo'lishi mumkin.^[37] Ushbu chora-tadbirlarni xodimlarning xavfsizligi uchun noqulay noqulay belgilash sifatida aniqlash orqali, CRI DoD razvedka hamjamiyati ichidagi xabar beruvchilarni keng himoya qilishga qodir.

Intelligence Community Whistleblower-ni himoya qilish to'g'risidagi qonun

Tez-tez hushtak chalish uchun javobgarlikdan himoya qilish bilan aralashadigan bitta nizom bu Intelligence Community Whistleblower-ni himoya qilish to'g'risidagi qonun 1998 yil (ICWPA), 1999 yil uchun moliyaviy razvedka to'g'risidagi qonunning bir qismi sifatida qabul qilingan va 1978 yilgi Bosh inspektor to'g'risidagi qonunga o'zgartirishlar kiritgan, 5 AQSh. Ilova. § 8H. O'z nomiga qaramay, ICWPA razvedka hamjamiyati xodimlari uchun hushtakbozlik uchun javobgarlikdan qonuniy himoya qilmaydi. "Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act" nomi noto'g'ri berilgan; aniqrog'i, ICWPA - bu maxfiy ma'lumotlarning kongressga etkazilgan ma'lumotlarini razvedka va kontrrazvedka faoliyati bilan shug'ullanadigan ijro etuvchi hokimiyat xodimlaridan himoya qiluvchi nizomdir.^[14]

ICWPA faqat to'rtta DoD razvedka agentligining xodimlari va ularga tayinlangan harbiy xizmatchilarga nisbatan qo'llaniladi Mudofaa razvedkasi agentligi (DIA), Milliy geografik-razvedka agentligi (NGA), Milliy razvedka idorasi (NRO) va Milliy xavfsizlik agentligi (NSA). ICWPA harbiy xizmatlar, birlashgan qo'mondonliklar yoki mudofaa vaziri idorasining razvedka yoki kontrrazvedka faoliyatiga taalluqli emas. Misol tariqasida, armiya departamentida ishlaydigan razvedka tahlilchisi ushbu nizomga murojaat qilmagan bo'lar edi.^[14]

ICWPA, agar xodim Kongress bilan aloqa qilishni xohlasa, foydalanilishi mumkin va: (1) shikoyat / ma'lumot maxfiy materiallarni o'z ichiga oladi; (2) xodim agentlik rahbariyatining maxfiy shikoyat / ma'lumot manbasini bilishini xohlamaydi yoki rahbariyat uni Kongressga yuborishiga ishonmaydi. Hamma oshkor qilishlar ICWPAga tegishli emas. Bu "shoshilinch tashvish" shikoyatlari bilan cheklangan. ICWPA-da "hushtakbozlarni himoya qilish" bandi yo'q bo'lsa-da, u "shoshilinch tashvish" deb belgilaydi, bu IG to'g'risidagi qonunning 7-qismining "v" bandini buzganligi, bu shikoyat / ma'lumotni oshkor qilganlarga nisbatan xatti-harakat yoki repressiya tahdidini taqiqlaydi. IG. OIG DoD ushbu holatlarda 7 (s) bo'limining buzilmasligini ta'minlash uchun tegishli surishtiruv o'tkazadi. ICWPA homiyligida berilgan uchta shikoyat 1998 yildan buyon Bosh inspektorga yuborilgan bo'lib, ularning hech biri xavfsizlikni rasmiylashtirishni to'xtatib turish yoki bekor qilish bilan bog'liq emas.

Xabardorlik va o'qitish

Mudofaaga oid ishonch telefoni - bu Bosh inspektorning fuqarolik xizmatchilari va harbiy xizmatchilariga o'zlarining ma'lumotlarini oshkor qilish majburiyati va natijada himoya qilishlarini tushuntirishdagi etakchisi.

Ishtiyoqni himoya qilishda muhim ahamiyatga ega bo'lgan xabardorlikni oshirish. Mudofaa bosh inspektori bo'limi buni uchta usul orqali targ'ib qiladi: tushuntirish, tergov va trening. Ularning har biri o'zaro bog'liq va barchasi tergov missiyasini qo'llab-quvvatlaydi. Mustaqillik va yaxlitlik bilan ajralib turadigan "tekshiruvlarsiz", targ'ibot va treninglar boshqaruv xatti-harakatlarini o'zgartira olmaydi.

Targ'ibot ishlari strategik manfaatdor tomonlarni Mudofaa bosh inspektorining vazifasi, hushtakbozlik va hushtakbuzarni ta'qib qilish asoslari to'g'risida xabardor qilish va pirovardida shikoyatga yo'naltirishlarni yaratish maqsadida o'tkaziladi. Mudofaaning bosh inspektori departamenti hushtakbuzarni ta'qib qilish to'g'risidagi shikoyatlarni nafaqat guvohlarni va mas'ul rahbariyat mansabdor shaxslarini huquqni va majburiyatlarni hushtakbozlikda o'qitishni o'rgatish, balki hushtak chalayotgan DoD fuqarolik ishchilarining javobgarlikdan himoyalanganligini ta'minlash uchun ham faol tekshiradi. Mudofaaning bosh inspektori bo'limi Dood IG rahbarlarini, menejerlarini va yangi xodimlarini 2302 (c) bo'limiga muvofiq sertifikatlash dasturiga qaramay faol ravishda o'qitadi.

Federal xodimlarga o'zlarining hushtakbozlik qiluvchilarning huquqlari va majburiyatlari to'g'risida xabar bermaslik DoDga, amerikalik jangchilarga va umuman federal hukumatga zarar keltiradi. Bosh inspektor buning muhimligini hozirgi Terrorizmga qarshi global urush amaliyotida ko'radi, bunda Mudofaaning ishonch telefoni firibgarlik, isrofgarchilik va suiiste'mol qilish to'g'risida xabar berish uchun yo'l ochib beradi. Mudofaani xabar qiluvchilar jangovar jangchiga bevosita ta'sir ko'rsatadigan ko'plab muhim vazifalar va faoliyatlarga oid tekshiruvlar va tekshiruvlarni o'tkazdilar. Masalan, Mudofaa jinoiy tergov xizmati (DCIS) GWOT bilan bog'liq pora, o'g'irlik va xaridlarni firibgarlikka tortish kabi ayblovlarni qat'iy tekshiradi. Firibgarlik, isrofgarchilik va suiiste'mol qilish to'g'risidagi da'volarni tekshirishdan tashqari; 2008 yilda DCIS AQSh armiyasining Iroqdagi xaridlari bilan bog'liq 14 milliard dollardan ortiq to'lov kuponlarini tahlil qiladigan proaktiv loyihani boshladi. Bundan tashqari, DoD IG Iroq bilan bog'liq ko'plab doimiy tekshiruvlarni o'z ichiga oladi, shu jumladan kontrakt kuzatuvi, kontrakt to'lovlari va zirhli transport vositalarini sotib olish.^[38]

Maxsus maslahatchilar bo'limi 2302-bo'lim (s) sertifikatlash dasturi

Ishonchli mashg'ulotlarga oid talablarning buzilishidan xavfsiz boshpana izlayotgan mudofaa komponentlari Maxsus maslahat idorasi tomonidan tasdiqlanadi.

1994 yilda Kongress xodimlarning taqiqlangan kadrlar amaliyotidan (PPP) ozod bo'lish huquqi, xususan hushtak chalish uchun qasos olish to'g'risidagi keng tarqalgan bexabarlik haqidagi xabarlarga javoban 5 AQSh qonunini qabul qildi. §2302 (c). Ushbu qoida Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari kodeksining 5-sarlavhasiga binoan "har bir agentlikning rahbari" agentlik xodimlarini ularga tegishli huquqlar va himoya vositalari to'g'risida xabardor qilish uchun "ayblaydi.^[39] OSC ning §2302 (c) sertifikatlash dasturi^[40] federal agentliklarga hushtakbozlarni himoya qilish to'g'risidagi qonunga binoan o'zlarining ishchi kuchlarini huquqlari, majburiyatlari va himoya vositalari to'g'risida ma'lumot berish bo'yicha qonuniy majburiyatlarini bajarishga imkon beradi. DoD IG sertifikatlashtirish jarayonida 2002 yil sentyabrdan beri ishtirok etib keladi. Natijada IGning yangi va hozirgi ishchilari hushtakbozlarni himoya qilish to'g'risidagi qonunga muvofiq huquqlari to'g'risida xabardor qilinadi.

§2302 (c) sertifikatiga muvofiqligi federal xodimlarga quyidagilarni tushunishga imkon beradi:

• Qonun, qoida yoki qoidalar buzilganligini ko'rganlarida oldinga chiqish ularning mas'uliyati;
• Federal xodimlar firibgarlikka, isrofgarchilikka yoki suiiste'molga guvoh bo'lganlarida murojaat qilishlari uchun IG kabi joy mavjud; va
• Mexanizmlar ikkalasi uchun ham amal qiladi: qonun, qoida yoki qoidalarning buzilishini oshkor qilgandan keyin o'z shaxsini himoya qilish; va rahbariyat tomonidan ularga nisbatan javobgarlikni tekshirish.

Bundan tashqari, §2302 (c) sertifikatiga muvofiqligi uchta maqsadga erishadi:

• Manbani himoya qilishga imkon beradi;
• Agentlikning yuzaga kelishi mumkin bo'lgan muntazam muammolarni ogohlantiradi va oldini oladi; va
• Obama ma'muriyatining ochiqlik va oshkoralik siyosati va amaliyotiga mos keladi.^[38]

52 mudofaa tarkibiy qismlari va ushbu tarkibiy qismlardagi ko'plab idoralar va buyruqlar,^[41] uchta tashkilot §2302 (c) sertifikatiga ega: AQSh Mudofaa vazirligi, Bosh inspektor idorasi, Bosh inspektorning dengiz tadqiqot laboratoriyasi idorasi va Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari havo kuchlarining shtab-kvartirasi 375-chi Airlift qanoti. Skott havo kuchlari bazasi Illinoysda.^[42]

Shuningdek qarang

Adabiyotlar

Ushbu maqola o'z ichiga oladijamoat mulki materiallari dan AQSh Mudofaa vazirligi veb-sayt http://www.dodig.mil.

Tashqi havolalar

Qo'shimcha o'qish

• Guvohlik berish, AQSh Mudofaa vazirligi Bosh inspektor idorasi, Janob Tomas F. Gimble Mudofaa Bosh boshqarmasi boshlig'i vazifasini bajaruvchi Milliy xavfsizlik, paydo bo'layotgan tahdidlar bo'yicha kichik qo'mita va Xalqaro aloqalar uyining milliy islohotlar bo'yicha milliy xavfsizlik qo'mitasi huzuridagi bayonoti. (2006 yil 14 fevral) da 6-10.

Dasturlar

• Ta'lim bo'limi xabar beruvchi dastur
• Milliy xavfsizlik to'g'risida xabar beruvchi dastur
• Ichki ishlar boshqarmasi