Reports of Reprisal by Navy Official Substantiated
The DOD’s Inspector General has found a Navy official at fault for retaliating against someone for making a protected disclosure.
The incident occured at the Navy Cyberwarfare Development Group in Fort Meade, Md.
A complaint prompted the investigation, according to a DOD press release. The Navy commander recommended revoking the security clearance of a Navy officer who had reported the commander had inaccurately represented a “mission-ready status.” The complaint alleged the recommendation was in retaliation for the servicemember making “protected disclosures” about the unit’s readiness.
The complaint also alleged that the Navy official abused her discretion in taking action against him. The official was not named in the DOD’s press release.
It may seem like pulling a security clearance isn’t much of a reprisal, but servicemembers with clearances need them to be able to do their jobs, according an official Navy page.
Reprisal Against Protected Disclosures
In the complaint, it was alleged that a Navy official recommended the revocation of the complainant’s eligibility to access classified information in reprisal for the complainant making protected disclosures. The complainant alleged that he made one of the protected disclosures to the Navy official during a meeting in which he reported that the Navy official inaccurately represented a mission-readiness status.
The complaint’s first disclosure occurred in October 2020, when he claimed the the senior official inaccurately represented the mission-readiness status. That protected disclosure was followed by two more in January and February 2021, in which the complainant accused the same official of abusing her authority by recommending the clearance revocation.
In substantiating the complaint, the DOD found that there was no merit to the initial claim of inaccurate mission status, but they did find the commander’s recommendation to pull the security clearance was a form of reprisal, according to the IG’s final report.
“We also found that, following these disclosures, there was no clear and convincing evidence to support a conclusion that the Navy official would have taken the action that affected the complainant’s eligibility to access classified information absent the complainant’s protected disclosures,” the press release said. “Factors in reaching this decision included inaccuracies in the Navy official’s recommendation to revoke the complainant’s eligibility to access classified information and her motive to reprise against the complainant for his protected communications.”
IG Robert P. Storch stated that even though the complainant was ultimately wrong in stating that the commander had inaccurately represented mission status, it is still important to protect the rights of servicemembers to make protected disclosures.
“Individuals must be free to come forward to make protected disclosures without fear of reprisal,” Storch said.
Similar Case at Fort Carson
This is not the only case or reprisal that has occurred in the U. S. military recently. In September 2024, a complaint alleged that the U.S. Army Reserve, 11th Expeditionary Combat Aviation Brigade in Fort Carson, Colo. removed an enlisted soldier from a deployment to the Middle East in reprisal for making protected communications concerning a sexual assault.
You can read The Daily Muck’s coverage of that case here.
More From This Author
Jordanian Saboteur Pleads Guilty to Damaging Energy Facilities in the U.S.
Report Strahinja Nikolić | Feb 4, 2025
Feds Charge “Rug Pullers” in Largest NFT Scam in History
Report Strahinja Nikolić | Feb 3, 2025
Weekly Muck
Join the mission and subscribe to our newsletter. In exchange, we promise to fight for justice.
Weekly
Muck
Join the mission and subscribe to our newsletter. In exchange, we promise to fight for justice.
