Critics say military’s whistleblower protection needs improvement
By Marni McEntee,
Stars and Stripes
MONS, Belgium — Army inspectors general routinely conduct inspections of service
units to report on such issues as discipline, efficiency, training and combat readiness.
As part of that process, inspectors general often hold "sensing sessions"
with the troops — a meeting akin to an open-mike session in which soldiers can bring
up any issues they feel are important.
Several such sessions were conducted in May by 5th Signal Command Inspector General Lt.
Col. James Mulkey as part of his routine inspection of the 39th Signal Battalion, based at
Supreme Allied Command, Europe.
The sessions were open to every soldier in the battalion. One soldier, Sgt. 1st Class
David Chavez, attended a session for noncommissioned officers. Chavez now believes that
his comments regarding unit leadership, promotion and medals policies prompted his command
to transfer him to another job.
If Chavez’s allegation is true, his commanders have violated federal law and Army
regulations.
According to Department of Defense and Army regulations, soldiers "often have an
expectation of confidentiality" during such sessions.
In order to assure that the system protects soldiers who speak out about prickly issues
such as fraud, waste or abuse, Congress enacted the Military Whistleblower Protection Act.
The Act prohibits anyone from retaliating against servicemembers who speak out about
such problems to inspectors general or to a member of Congress.
The Act is meant to protect soldiers who reveal violations of law or regulation,
mismanagement or dangers to public health and safety.
The trouble is, according to whistleblower watchdog groups, reprisals still occur.
"What’s really a shame about it is that in most military cases, these are
terrific soldiers who are being discriminated against," said Louis Clark, executive
director of the Government Accountability Project. "These are soldiers that really
care. When they raise their concerns then they’re given a contradicting message. When
they speak out they get into trouble."
Clark said his organization, which provides legal representation and investigates cases
in which whistleblowers are targeted, has stopped taking military cases.
It has found that the military version of the Whistleblower Protection Act doesn’t
offer the same protections against whistleblowers as laws protecting federal and corporate
employees.
"The bill that was passed is still not strong enough," Clark said. "You
really have to win these cases by going to Congress."
A 1995 General Accounting Office report outlined some of the military directive’s
shortcomings.
Among other things, it said: "DOD’s current directive implementing the law
provides that only allegations of reprisals made directly to the DOD IG are entitled to
the law’s protections."
Once reported, the act requires the Department of Defense inspector general to
"expeditiously investigate a whistleblower’s allegations of reprisal that it
receives within 60 days of the servicemember’s initial awareness of the adverse
action," the GAO report said.
Since Chavez raised his concerns to the inspector general and in a letter to the editor
of Stars and Stripes, the 29th Signal Battalion has launched an internal investigation
into the matter.
Chavez said he has not filed a complaint with any inspector general’s office.
He instead reported his troubles to his unit’s Equal Employment Opportunity
office.
Clark maintains that the military act doesn’t require the same standards for
review of reprisal cases as similar laws for civilians.
"It should be the burden of the military to show by overwhelming evidence that
there was some other legitimate reason to take the action against the soldier," Clark
said.
"Our experience is that [investigations] inevitably will find in the favor of the
command."
An official in the Department of Defense Inspector General’s office said, however,
that the system in place can protect soldiers.
"No case is actually closed without DOD IG review," said the official, who
requested anonymity. "I would hope that he [Chavez] would file a complaint with an
IG’s office that he has been the subject of reprisal, and it would work its way up to
us."
Back to June stories
Page Two news roundup
Stories from May, 2001
Stories from April, 2001
Stories from March, 2001
Stories from February,2001
Stories from January, 2001
Stories from December, 2000
Stories from November, 2000
Stories from October, 2000
Stories from August and September, 2000
Stories from June and July, 2000
Home |
