For those of you unfamiliar with the F-22, it has a series of problems making it very dangerous for the pilots who fly it, which we have covered in other posts on this blog. If you are interested in that history, search using the F-22 tags. Those problems appear to continue unresolved as of this writing.
Part 3 from POGO's
Despite aggressive editing of his report by the Defense Security Service’s senior management, Conley thought the issues were serious enough to flag them to the regional official responsible for counterintelligence sometime in late 2002 or early 2003, according to an IG timeline of Conley’s case.
During this time, he told investigators he began to “experience a dramatic increase in workload,” according to the IG reprisal investigators’ report.
Conley was also unexpectedly called back from an assignment in Alaska to attend a meeting in California.
“I was stood up in front of all my peers in an all-hands meeting of Special Access Program Personnel, and stripped...of all of my Special Programs,” Conley told IG investigators, according to a transcript.
“It was incredibly humiliating,” Conley said of the episode.
Conley told the IG reprisal investigators that he believed the increase in workload and the removal of responsibilities were retaliation for his continued pursuit of the Boeing matter.
However, the IG reprisal office declined to evaluate whether the removal of responsibilities was retaliatory in nature because these events were too far in the past, the IG report stated.
Going Outside His Agency: Work with Hesitant Investigators Triggers Reprisal?
It was mere months later that Conley left the Defense Security Service to work as a counterintelligence and security specialist at the U.S. Commerce Department.
In parallel with his own administrative inquiry, Conley had informed criminal investigators in the Navy Department about Boeing’s activities in February 2002.
As Conley explained to DoD IG investigators, in 2005, Kelly and Conley decided they still had to try to do something about what they believed was continuing to transpire at Boeing. They went to other criminal investigators in the Seattle office of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, which is the criminal investigative arm of the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General.
When that effort went nowhere, the two turned to Congress, first approaching Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona, who directed the pair to Conley’s own Senator, Maria Cantwell, a Democrat of Washington state.
The involvement of Congress may have sparked action from Defense Criminal Investigative Service. Soon after Conley and Kelly’s allegations reached Congress, a special agent with the Service contacted Conley and took a sworn statement from him in early 2006.
Then, in February 2008, the Defense Security Service rehired Conley to perform essentially the same job he had half a decade prior, according to the IG reprisal investigators.
According to the investigators’ timeline, in September 2008, Conley, “lodged a complaint against DSS and the Boeing company,” claiming that he had been a victim of professional reprisal. On Sept. 18, 2008, Conley’s immediate supervisor was told to remove Conley from his oversight responsibilities of Boeing—the action that later led IG reprisal investigators to conclude that Conley was the victim of agency reprisal for whistleblowing.
Meanwhile, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service conducted an investigation into Boeing. Conley regularly pursued status updates on the investigation via Cantwell’s office, which in turn provided him with what appeared to be brief generic form letters from the IG stating the investigation was still open.
One source in the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the source was not authorized to discuss the matter, told POGO that the source's review of the case in the agency’s database showed that it did not seem very active when it was still open.
Finally, in late 2009, the agency closed the investigation.
The result? A Nov. 19, 2009, letter to Sen. Cantwell from the DoD IG says the Defense Criminal Investigative Service investigation could not substantiate allegations that Boeing was involved in the theft of government-owned classified material or that Conley was the victim of reprisal.
POGO filed Freedom of Information Act requests for the Defense Criminal Investigative Service and Naval Criminal Investigative Service reports of investigation last year, but has received only interim responses acknowledging that the agencies received our requests.
Ultimately, IG reprisal investigators came to a different conclusion than did the IG’s criminal investigators. In their 2011 report, the reprisal investigators substantiated the allegations that Conley was reprised against. They clearly established that the removal of Conley’s oversight responsibilities was directly tied to his communication with DCIS about problems he was encountering with his investigation into Boeing. At least three Defense Security Service management officials told the IG reprisal investigators as much:
DSS was similarly tight-lipped. In response to a POGO query about Conley and Kelly’s allegations against Boeing and DSS, a DSS spokesperson replied, “DSS does not publicly disclose the results of its security reviews of individual cleared facilities or the results of administrative inquiries as this discloses security vulnerabilities that may be exploited.”
“In regard to the IG report you reference, DSS has reviewed the report and the DSS Director has taken all appropriate action within his authority to address this issue,” she added, referring to the reprisal taken against Conley.
However, according to DoD IG data from April 23, 2012, shared with Congress and viewed by POGO, the DoD IG lists Conley's case as “Pending Follow-Up Action”—which seems to contradict the DSS spokesperson’s statement.
Part 3 from POGO's
Whistleblower: Boeing Put Classified Information at Risk
Pentagon Watchdog Backs Up Retaliation Claim
By NICK SCHWELLENBACH
“Mr. Conley's belief, in 2002, that Boeing was illegally transferring classified technology was reasonable.”
First Round of Retaliation?Despite aggressive editing of his report by the Defense Security Service’s senior management, Conley thought the issues were serious enough to flag them to the regional official responsible for counterintelligence sometime in late 2002 or early 2003, according to an IG timeline of Conley’s case.
During this time, he told investigators he began to “experience a dramatic increase in workload,” according to the IG reprisal investigators’ report.
Conley was also unexpectedly called back from an assignment in Alaska to attend a meeting in California.
“I was stood up in front of all my peers in an all-hands meeting of Special Access Program Personnel, and stripped...of all of my Special Programs,” Conley told IG investigators, according to a transcript.
“It was incredibly humiliating,” Conley said of the episode.
Conley told the IG reprisal investigators that he believed the increase in workload and the removal of responsibilities were retaliation for his continued pursuit of the Boeing matter.
However, the IG reprisal office declined to evaluate whether the removal of responsibilities was retaliatory in nature because these events were too far in the past, the IG report stated.
Going Outside His Agency: Work with Hesitant Investigators Triggers Reprisal?
It was mere months later that Conley left the Defense Security Service to work as a counterintelligence and security specialist at the U.S. Commerce Department.
In parallel with his own administrative inquiry, Conley had informed criminal investigators in the Navy Department about Boeing’s activities in February 2002.
As Conley explained to DoD IG investigators, in 2005, Kelly and Conley decided they still had to try to do something about what they believed was continuing to transpire at Boeing. They went to other criminal investigators in the Seattle office of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, which is the criminal investigative arm of the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General.
Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA).
|
The involvement of Congress may have sparked action from Defense Criminal Investigative Service. Soon after Conley and Kelly’s allegations reached Congress, a special agent with the Service contacted Conley and took a sworn statement from him in early 2006.
Then, in February 2008, the Defense Security Service rehired Conley to perform essentially the same job he had half a decade prior, according to the IG reprisal investigators.
According to the investigators’ timeline, in September 2008, Conley, “lodged a complaint against DSS and the Boeing company,” claiming that he had been a victim of professional reprisal. On Sept. 18, 2008, Conley’s immediate supervisor was told to remove Conley from his oversight responsibilities of Boeing—the action that later led IG reprisal investigators to conclude that Conley was the victim of agency reprisal for whistleblowing.
Meanwhile, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service conducted an investigation into Boeing. Conley regularly pursued status updates on the investigation via Cantwell’s office, which in turn provided him with what appeared to be brief generic form letters from the IG stating the investigation was still open.
One source in the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the source was not authorized to discuss the matter, told POGO that the source's review of the case in the agency’s database showed that it did not seem very active when it was still open.
Finally, in late 2009, the agency closed the investigation.
The result? A Nov. 19, 2009, letter to Sen. Cantwell from the DoD IG says the Defense Criminal Investigative Service investigation could not substantiate allegations that Boeing was involved in the theft of government-owned classified material or that Conley was the victim of reprisal.
POGO filed Freedom of Information Act requests for the Defense Criminal Investigative Service and Naval Criminal Investigative Service reports of investigation last year, but has received only interim responses acknowledging that the agencies received our requests.
Ultimately, IG reprisal investigators came to a different conclusion than did the IG’s criminal investigators. In their 2011 report, the reprisal investigators substantiated the allegations that Conley was reprised against. They clearly established that the removal of Conley’s oversight responsibilities was directly tied to his communication with DCIS about problems he was encountering with his investigation into Boeing. At least three Defense Security Service management officials told the IG reprisal investigators as much:
Mr. Whitecotton [Conley’s supervisor] testified that he ordered Mr. Conley’s removal from Boeing based on Mr. Conley’s past work performance. However, this rationale is contradicted by testimony from Mr. Lawhorn, [name redacted] and Mr. Hellman. Therefore, we concluded that Mr. Conley was removed from Boeing because of the information he provided to DCIS.
The IG reprisal investigators determined that the decision to remove Conley from his oversight of Boeing was not done in consultation with DSS ethics regulations or with involvement of the DSS general counsel.
Boeing declined to comment on the IG reprisal investigators’ findings. “The Boeing Company does not comment on non-public government reports,” a Boeing spokeswoman for Phantom Works told POGO in an email. DSS was similarly tight-lipped. In response to a POGO query about Conley and Kelly’s allegations against Boeing and DSS, a DSS spokesperson replied, “DSS does not publicly disclose the results of its security reviews of individual cleared facilities or the results of administrative inquiries as this discloses security vulnerabilities that may be exploited.”
“In regard to the IG report you reference, DSS has reviewed the report and the DSS Director has taken all appropriate action within his authority to address this issue,” she added, referring to the reprisal taken against Conley.
However, according to DoD IG data from April 23, 2012, shared with Congress and viewed by POGO, the DoD IG lists Conley's case as “Pending Follow-Up Action”—which seems to contradict the DSS spokesperson’s statement.
No comments:
Post a Comment