Recommendation: To help ensure that DOD is implementing the fraud, waste, and abuse prevention requirements to the OIGs, the Inspectors General of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should implement the requirements themselves or delegate the implementation of the requirements to the investigative services.

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy: Naval Inspector General
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation in its comments on the draft report. In June 2020, we requested information on the status of the recommendation. When we confirm the actions the Navy has taken, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: To help ensure that DOD is implementing the fraud, waste, and abuse prevention requirements to the OIGs, the Inspectors General of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should implement the requirements themselves or delegate the implementation of the requirements to the investigative services.

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation in its comments on the draft report. As of July 2020, the Army had drafted a memorandum that would delegate the requirements to the investigative services or program office. We will update the status of this recommendation after the Army issues the final memorandum.

Recommendation: To help ensure the accuracy of MSPB's reporting on whistleblower appeals received and closed, the Chairman of MSPB should update MSPB's data entry user guide to include additional guidance and procedures to help improve the identification of appropriate whistleblower appeal closing codes to use.

Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board
Status: Open

Comments: MSPB is finalizing finalized expanded guidance and procedures on coding whistleblower data. MSPB is committed to ensuring that procedures are in place for identifying and using appropriate whistleblower codes; however, MSPB is limited by its various legacy applications with regard to the improvements related to data entry that can be implemented at this time. MSPB currently is in the process of designing new core business applications that will incorporate appropriate data quality, integrity, and accountability measures to further improve its data management practices. Until the new case management system is in production in FY 2020 or early FY 2021, MSPB remains committed to utilizing the resources necessary to ensure the accuracy of its reported data. To achieve this objective, experienced attorneys reviewed, validated, and, where necessary, corrected agency whistleblowing data prior to public release in FY 2016, FY 2017, and FY 2018. MSPB is committed to this extra layer of review for FY 2019, and will continue to evaluate how to achieve this objective given other workload and available resources. According to MSPB it expects additional progress on its efforts by July 2020.

Recommendation: To help ensure the accuracy of MSPB's reporting on whistleblower appeals received and closed, the Chairman of MSPB should add a quality check in MSPB's data analysis and reporting process to better identify discrepancies or other anomalies in data queries and the resulting datasets.

Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board
Status: Open

Comments: MSPB stated that it completed drafting the data integrity study mentioned in our previous response, looking at the current processes and integrity of case-related data as a whole throughout the agency. As explained above and highlighted in MSPB's FY 2018 Annual Report, MSPB's initiative to design and configure new core business applications currently is underway, and the findings in the study are integral to incorporating the appropriate data integrity processes, including quality checks and controls, into these new applications. According to MSPB it expects additional progress on its efforts by July 2020.

Recommendation: To improve the military whistleblower reprisal investigation process and oversight of such investigations, the Secretary of Defense should work in coordination with the Department of Defense Inspector General (DODIG) to direct the services to follow standardized investigation stages and issue guidance clarifying how the stages are defined.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD officials concurred with this recommendation and provided an update in May 2019, in which they stated that the office was preparing an issuance for coordination that will direct the services to follow standardized investigation stages and guidance clarifying how the stages are defined. DOD officials estimated that the issuance would be completed by December 31, 2019.

Recommendation: To better ensure that FBI whistleblowers have access to recourse under DOJ's regulations should the individuals experience retaliation, and to minimize the possibility of discouraging future potential whistleblowers, the Attorney General should clarify in all current relevant DOJ guidance and communications, including FBI guidance and communications, to whom FBI employees may make protected disclosures and, further, explicitly state that employees will not have access to recourse if they experience retaliation for reporting alleged wrongdoing to someone not designated in DOJ's regulations.

Agency: Department of Justice
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In response to our report, in December 2016, Congress passed and the President signed the FBI Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-302, which, among other things, provides a means for FBI employees to obtain corrective action for retaliation for disclosures of wrongdoing made to supervisors and others in the employees' chain of command. Following this, the FBI worked closely with the Department of Justice's Office of Inspector General (DOJ-OIG) to develop a training that clearly identifies to whom FBI employees may make protected disclosures. In addition, the FBI issued an aligned policy directive and two fact sheets detailing whistleblower rights. In October 2018, a DOJ official reported to us that the department was in the process of updating its regulations and, in February 2020, DOJ officials confirmed that the updated regulation was in the departmental clearance process but they could not provide an estimate for when it would be finalized. As a result, as of February 2020, DOJ's regulations have not been updated and are inconsistent with the current statute and FBI's guidance and training; as such, the problem of unclear or conflicting guidance to FBI employees still needs to be addressed. To address this recommendation, DOJ would need to update its regulations and ensure that all relevant guidance is clear and consistent across the department.