We evaluated the non-Defense Criminal Investigative Organization (non-DCIO) Components to determine whether they complied with DoD Instruction (DoDI) 5505.16, “Criminal Investigations by Personnel Who Are Not Assigned to a Defense Criminal Investigative Organization [DCIO],” May 7, 2012, when conducting criminal investigations.
Our evaluation covered the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA), Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Defense Health Agency (DHA), Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA), and Washington Headquarters Services (WHS), hereafter referred to as non-DCIO Components.
We examined the non-DCIO Components’ investigative data and determined that DLA and DFAS were the only two Components that conducted criminal investigations and were subject to DoDI 5505.16 requirements.
We further determined DCAA, DeCA, DCMA, DHA, DoDEA, and WHS did not conduct criminal investigations. These non-DCIO Components, pursuant to their standard operating procedures reported criminal allegations to a DCIO or other law enforcement agency (LEA) or conducted administrative investigations for management action.
Specifically, we determined whether DLA and DFAS:
· notified the appropriate “DCIO at the onset of all investigations as required; and
· reported allegations of misconduct made against senior officials to the DoD Office of Inspector General (OIG).
We also determined whether DCAA, DeCA, DCMA, DoDEA, WHS, DHA, the non-DCIO Components that conducted only administrative investigations:
· reported criminal allegations to a DCIO or other law enforcement agency (LEA) and
· reported allegations of misconduct made against senior officials to the DoD OIG.
A. DLA and DFAS, the only two non-DCIO Components that conducted criminal investigations, complied with DoDI 5505.16 in 44 of 47 (94 percent) cases when they notified a DCIO at the onset of their criminal investigation.
· DLA notified a DCIO when they initiated a criminal investigation in 39 of 42 (93 percent) criminal investigations. DLA said it did not notify a DCIO for three cases because a DCIO or law enforcement agency had declined similar cases due to lack of investigative merit, lack of investigative threshold, or because the case lacked sufficient military connection. We determined DLA should have notified a DCIO in these three cases.
· DFAS notified a DCIO when they initiated a criminal investigation in 5 of 5 (100 percent) criminal investigations.
B. Although DoDI 5505.16 requires non-DCIO Components that conduct criminal investigations to notify a DCIO at the onset of an investigation, the Instruction does not require non-DCIO Components that do not conduct criminal investigations to make similar notifications. However, the following agencies told us they made notifications when they received criminal allegations.
DCAA, DeCA, DCMA, and DoDEA reported 17 of 17 criminal allegations they received to a DCIO or other law enforcement agency.
· DCAA told us the agency reported one criminal allegation to a DCIO. We confirmed the DCIO received the allegation.
· DeCA officials told us the agency reported three criminal allegations to DCIOs. DCIO officials told us they had no record of two reports; another LEA told us they received the other report. DeCA made a record of their notifications, including the person’s name and telephone number to whom they reported the allegations. The DCIO officials confirmed that the named persons worked for their agency at the time of the report.
· DCMA officials told us their agency reported 11 criminal allegations to a DCIO or other law enforcement agency. However, the agencies told us they received only 9 of 11 criminal allegations reported by DCMA. DCMA made a record of their notifications to include the person’s name and telephone number to whom they reported the allegations. The DCIO officials confirmed that the named persons worked for their agency at the time of the report.
· DoDEA told us the agency reported two criminal allegations to a DCIO or other LEA. We confirmed the DCIO or LEA received both allegations.
· WHS officials told us the agency reported criminal allegations to the Pentagon Force Protection Agency (PFPA), but because WHS did not maintain records of those reports, we could only verify with PFPA that WHS reports criminal allegations to their agency.
· DHA reported it did not receive any criminal allegations during the period reviewed.
C. DLA, DCAA, DeCA, DFAS, DCMA, and DoDEA complied with DoDI 5505.16 in 20 of 20 cases (100 percent) when they notified the DoD OIG of allegations of senior official misconduct. WHS and DHA officials reported that their agencies did not receive any allegations of senior official misconduct during the period reviewed.
We recommend that the Director, Defense Logistics Agency ensure that investigators notify Defense Criminal Investigative Organizations at the onset of all criminal investigations initiated on Military service members, DoD civilians, or DoD contractor personnel who are identified as suspects or victims of criminal activity.
We recommend that the Directors, Defense Commissary Agency and Defense Contract Management Agency notify the Defense Criminal Investigative Organizations or other law enforcement agencies on the four cases that the receiving agency could not confirm.
We recommend that the Director, Washington Headquarters Services document notifications of criminal allegations made to a DCIO or other LEA and that the receiving agency confirms receipt of the report, as is now required in accordance with DoD Directive 5106.04, E2.3.q.
Management Comments and Our Response
The Chief of Staff, Defense Logistics Agency; the Deputy Director, Defense Commissary Agency; and the Director, Defense Contract Management Agency agreed with the recommendation to ensure that DCIO or law enforcement notifications are made, documented, and confirmed.
The Director, Washington Headquarters Services, disagreed with our recommendation that WHS document notifications to a DCIO or other law enforcement agency and that the receiving agency confirm receipt of the report. The Director responded that while WHS does report criminal allegations, DoDD 5106.04 does not require documentation or receipt confirmation of criminal allegation notifications.
We disagree with the comments from the Director, Washington Headquarters Services. Although DoDD 5106.04 is silent concerning a requirement that DoD Components document their notification of criminal allegations made to a DCIO, we believe that documenting notifications and confirming the DCIO or LEA received them is a necessary part of an effective internal control system. Documenting and retaining this information, which is practiced by other non-DCIO Components we evaluated, ensures that the Component can demonstrate its staff took appropriate action in reporting criminal allegations and allows us to validate that all criminal allegations were reported. The revised DoDI 5505.16 will require all DoD Components to document criminal allegations reported to law enforcement and confirm that the law enforcement agency received the report.
The Director, Washington Headquarters Services also disagreed with WHS’ inclusion in our evaluation, stating that WHS does not conduct criminal investigations and therefore is not subject to DoDI 5505.16.
We disagree with the Director’s comment. Our evaluation determined compliance by the non-DCIO Components that conducted criminal investigations, as well as how the non-DCIO Components that did not conduct criminal investigations processed criminal allegations brought to its attention. In addition, WHS is subject to senior official misconduct reporting requirements, which is also detailed in DoDI 5505.16.
We request from the Director, Washington Headquarters Services, additional comments that discuss, in light of our comments, whether and when the agency will institute procedures to document its reporting of criminal allegations to a DCIO or other law enforcement agency.
This report is a result of Project No. 2015C009.