Army

April 18, 2014

Whistleblower reprisal — what it is, isn’t

Sgt. 1st Class Monica O’Leary
Inspector General Office

Many people who observe or learn of wrongdoing are often afraid to report it because they fear that if the word got out, negative action would be taken against them.

In order for the office of the Inspector General, or IG, to provide assistance, it is important that the Fort Huachuca community fully understand what whistleblower reprisal is, and what it is not, before presenting an allegation of whistleblower reprisal to the office of the IG.

Whistleblower reprisal is taking or threatening an unfavorable personnel action, or withholding or threatening to withhold a favorable personnel action, because the member made, or was thought to have made, a protected communication.

A protected communication is any lawful communication to members of Congress, inspectors general, Department of Defense audit, inspection, investigation, law enforcement organization, any person in the chain of command or any other person designated pursuant to regulations or established administrative procedures to receive such communications.

Before making an allegation of whistleblower reprisal to the office of the Inspector General, or IG, ask yourself: “was an unfavorable personnel action taken or threatened?” And if so, was your command justified in their decisions as a result of the Soldier’s own actions?

Many Soldiers who make whistleblower reprisal complaints to the IG do not understand the term, or that there are certain criteria that must be met in order for the office of the IG to investigate an allegation of whistleblower reprisal. Many Soldiers who come to the IG’s office with an allegation of reprisal list the IG as their protected communication, but an IG cannot be considered a protected communication if the favorable personnel action was threatened or withheld prior to making the complaint.

As an example, Sgt. 1st Class John Doe made a congressional inquiry against his unit for abuse of authority. Once Doe’s command became aware of his request for Congressional assistance, his command relieved Doe of his platoon sergeant duties and assigned him to a different, non-leadership position. This is an example of whistleblower reprisal.

Whistleblower reprisal is not simply receiving an Article 15 or being relieved from a military course as a result of a violation of regulation, policy or law; it must be directly related to a protected communication as described above.

Those who believe they have an allegation of whistleblower reprisal, must make their complaint within 60 days of the date they became aware of the personnel action. The request for the IG to investigate an allegation of whistleblower reprisal will be declined or cannot be acted on if a protected communication was not made, an unfavorable personnel action was not taken or threatened, or the allegation is considered untimely.

Those with questions about whistleblower reprisals or other IG matters are invited to call the IG office, 533.1144.




All of this week's top headlines to your email every Friday.


 
 

 
Julianne E. Cochran

Help wanted: Enlisted aides in valued roles for Army leaders

Julianne E. Cochran An Enlisted Aide Training Course instructor shows a student the specifics of setting up a general officer’s uniform during a practical exercise. WASHINGTON – Enlisted aides are considered an elite group ...
 
 

CWFC supports Fort’s civilian employees

Fort Huachuca’s Civilian Welfare Fund Council (CWFC) uses the money derived from vending machines to support federal employees. Each month a percentage of the money from post snack and soda vending machines goes into a secured CWFC account to provide morale and recreational activities to civilian employees. According to Carmen Chastain, CWFC president, these activities...
 
 
Photo courtesy of Richard Grosinsky

Hunter unmanned aircraft system ends history here, leaves long legacy

Photo courtesy of Richard Grosinsky From that first Hunter unmanned aircraft system training class that graduated here April 27, 1992, to its final flight here July 10, Fort Huachuca’s UAS program continues to build on the vi...
 

 

Official participation in #GiveThem20 campaign not authorized

The Office of the Judge Advocate General has been notified by the DOD Standards of Conduct Office about an online social media campaign titled”#GiveThem20.” The action is supported by, and draws attention to, a national nonprofit organization called American Corporate Partners. The campaign is online at GiveThem20.org. The campaign proposes video recording yourself or a...
 
 

OPM announces steps to protect federal workers, others from cyber threats

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) announced July 15 the results of the interagency forensics investigation into a recent cyber incident involving federal background investigation data and the steps it is taking to protect those impacted. Throughout this investigation, OPM has been committed to providing information in a timely, transparent and accurate...
 
 
U.S. Army photo

Military Intelligence – Moment in MI history

Maj. Gen. Ralph Van Deman – Namesake of the East Gate U.S. Army photo Maj. Gen. Paul Menoher, commander of the US Army Intelligence Center, and Command Sgt. Maj. Art Johnson unveil the memorialization plaque at the Van Deman ...
 




0 Comments


Be the first to comment!


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>