United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

February 1995 INSPECTORS

GENERAL

Alleged Misconduct by

NASA Inspector

General

GAO/OSI-95-9

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Office of Special Investigations

B-259046 

February 10, 1995

The Honorable John Glenn

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Carl Levin

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Oversight of Government

 Management and the District of Columbia

Committee on Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

This report responds to your March 25, 1994, request that we review

allegations of misconduct by the then-National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA) Inspector General, William Colvin.1

 The report

discusses the results of our investigation concerning Mr. Colvin’s

(1) prenotification of senior NASA employees who were targets of

impending Office of the Inspector General (OIG) investigations,

(2) unauthorized disclosure of grand jury-related information, and

(3) premature closing of selected audits and investigations.

Results in Brief Mr. Colvin’s practice concerning prenotification matters appears to

constitute a failure to exercise due professional care and could be viewed

as an impairment of his office’s execution of investigations. For example,

we found that before the OIG began an investigation into a possible

conflict-of-interest matter, Mr. Colvin told a senior-level NASA official who

was the subject of an investigation about the allegations.

In another matter involving the alleged prenotification of a high-level NASA

official, we found that Mr. Colvin had not prenotified the official. However,

Mr. Colvin, after communicating with the NASA administrator, used

questionable judgment in not notifying his agent in charge of the

investigation that the matter might be handled administratively.

In the matter of the alleged unauthorized release of grand jury information

pertaining to an OIG contractor investigation, the Assistant U.S. Attorney

stated that although such disclosures would normally constitute a

1

Mr. Colvin resigned his Inspector General position effective September 3, 1994.

Page 1 GAO/OSI-95-9 Alleged Misconduct by NASA Inspector General
B-259046 

violation of 6(e) regulations,2 Mr. Colvin’s alleged discussion of grand

jury-related information in this specific incident did not violate the 6(e)

provisions since the U.S. Attorney’s Office had already apprised the

defendants in the matter of an impending indictment.

Further, evidence indicates that Mr. Colvin did not close audits or

investigations prematurely, as alleged. For example, the NASA Office of

General Counsel (OGC) suggested that insufficient evidence existed in a

matter concerning violations of the Anti-Deficiency Act. In another matter

regarding space station contracts, NASA auditors terminated the audit

independently of Mr. Colvin. With regard to a situation involving the

acceptance of gratuities from a NASA contractor, Mr. Colvin questioned the

need for additional work because the OIG had sufficient evidence to show

misconduct.

Prenotification of

Targets of

Investigations

Prenotification A former NASA Center Director allegedly attempted to improperly relocate

a NASA program from Reston, Virginia, to Houston, Texas, and attempted to

pressure NASA contractor officials to hire a friend to manage the program.

When an OIG investigator met with the Center Director, the Director stated

that Mr. Colvin had previously told him of the allegations against him. The

Director offered the investigator several documents that he had assembled

as a consequence of his conversation with Mr. Colvin. Further, the

investigator reported to his superiors about the Center Director’s

statement that Mr. Colvin had informed him of the pending investigation.

The former Center Director confirmed that he had been informed of the

nature of the allegations before the OIG investigator interviewed him. When

questioned about this case, Mr. Colvin responded that although he was not

able to recall having had a conversation with the subject, he did not

dispute that it may have occurred.

2

Rule 6(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure prohibits the disclosure of information

gathered by a grand jury, unless the disclosure is made by a witness or to persons with responsibility

for investigating or prosecuting the matter.

Page 2 GAO/OSI-95-9 Alleged Misconduct by NASA Inspector General
B-259046 

IG’s Position on

Prenotification

Mr. Colvin stated that it was his practice to contact high-level NASA officials

to advise them that they were the subject of an investigation and would be

interviewed by an OIG staff member. He also informed them of the nature

of the allegation. We asked Mr. Colvin if he had any concerns with

prenotifying individuals of allegations against them in investigations

having potential criminal merit. We referred specifically to situations

involving conflict of interest, which could possibly cause the

destruction/alteration of documents, conspiracy with others, or otherwise

compromise an investigation. Mr. Colvin replied that it would not be a

concern. He further remarked that he did not see a problem in letting

high-level employees know that they were subjects of an investigation.

The investigator told us that he was unable to determine whether Mr.

Colvin’s premature disclosure compromised his investigation. However, he

believed that Mr. Colvin’s actions eliminated the ability to obtain from the

former Center Director spontaneous and unrehearsed responses to

questions. Subsequently, the case was closed as unsubstantiated.

We learned from the Assistant IG for Investigations that the OIG has no

written or unwritten policy regarding the prenotification of subjects and

targets of investigations. However, according to the Assistant IG, although

the previously identified investigation was noncriminal in nature, it is his

opinion that the OIG practice in criminal investigations would apply:

Subjects or targets of investigations should not be prenotified of the

allegations prior to the official initiation of an investigation. Further, he

would be concerned upon learning that any OIG agent had intentionally

forewarned a subject of an investigation.

Failure to Inform

Investigator of Discussion

With NASA Administrator

In another matter, it was alleged that a senior NASA official had misused

NASA aircraft because he had taken his wife with him on a business trip. In

consideration of the official’s minority status and a “volatile” Equal

Employment Opportunity situation that existed at that particular NASA

facility, NASA OIG opened the matter for investigation.

When the OIG investigator interviewed the senior official, the official stated

that NASA’s Chief of Staff had already told him of the allegations against

him. Therefore, the official had initiated steps to repay the agency for his

wife’s airfare. According to the then-Chief of Staff, Mr. Colvin suggested

that the nature of the allegation be discussed with the official and that the

official arrange to reimburse NASA for the equivalent commercial airfare for

his wife. Mr. Colvin told us that in a meeting he attended with the

Page 3 GAO/OSI-95-9 Alleged Misconduct by NASA Inspector General
B-259046 

Administrator and the Chief of Staff, the Administrator had asked how

NASA should address the situation. The Chief of Staff recommended

pursuing administrative action to include recoupment of the commercial

cost of the airfare. Mr. Colvin stated that he had concurred with the

suggested action.

We do not believe that Mr. Colvin’s discussions with the NASA

Administrator and Chief of Staff concerning possible resolution of the

travel matter were inappropriate. However, we believe that he erred in

failing to apprise his field investigative staff of the decision to pursue an

administrative resolution of the matter.

Unauthorized Release

of Grand Jury

Information

We received information suggesting that Mr. Colvin had improperly

revealed grand jury-related information during a meeting with NASA

officials who were not OIG personnel. Mr. Colvin may have told the

participants that a specific NASA contractor was under indictment, and he

may have revealed the proposed number of criminal counts under

consideration in the indictment. Within 1 week following the meeting, a

story about the impending indictment appeared in the local newspaper of

the area where the contractor was located. Credit for the content of the

news article was attributed to a “confidential source.”

Mr. Colvin stated that during the course of a meeting with two associate

administrators from the Houston office, he may have advised them to

anticipate press exposure of a pending indictment. However, he could not

recall whether he had discussed the specific number of counts in the

indictment.

According to the cognizant Assistant U.S. Attorney, any information

released prematurely could have precluded using that information for trial,

but that was not a concern in this particular instance. He stated that Mr.

Colvin’s disclosures of grand jury-related information to anyone not

authorized to receive it would normally be inappropriate. However, since

the defendants in this matter were clearly aware of the ongoing

investigation and knew that an indictment would eventually result, Mr.

Colvin’s disclosures would not, in his opinion, constitute a violation of the

general rule for secrecy of grand jury proceedings.

Page 4 GAO/OSI-95-9 Alleged Misconduct by NASA Inspector General
B-259046 

Premature Closing of

and Interference in

Audits/ Investigations

Some allegations concerned Mr. Colvin’s premature closing of and

interference in audits or investigations involving Anti-Deficiency Act

violations, space station contracts, and a senior NASA official’s acceptance

of gratuities from a contractor.

It was alleged that Mr. Colvin pressured OIG staff to end an audit that had

identified violations of the Anti-Deficiency Act. The allegation noted that

no record of the audit ever surfaced nor did the OIG issue an audit report

on the matter. Additionally, the IG offered no comments to the audit team

as to the disposition of the report. We learned that the Deputy Assistant IG

for Audits had decided not to issue a report on the Anti-Deficiency Act

matter because the NASA OGC did not believe that sufficient evidence

existed to show that a violation had occurred. Further, after contacting an

appropriate congressional staff member, the OIG was told that no

additional reporting on the matter would be necessary.

Concerning an audit of space station contracts, it was alleged that Mr.

Colvin had persuaded a Center Director to abandon the audit and

encouraged the Center Director to discourage the Assistant Inspector

General for Audits from attempting to issue a management letter

addressing the issue. We did not corroborate any information to support

the allegation. OIG staff members disclosed that NASA auditors decided to

terminate the space station audit without consulting Mr. Colvin once it had

become evident that the Space Station Program Office had issued

termination letters to contractors. Additionally, NASA auditors noted, when

the termination letters were to take effect, that the contractor had

independently decided to cease further work under the contract. The

Assistant IG for Audits subsequently determined that it was too late to

report on the matter.

Finally, in an investigation involving a senior NASA official accused of

accepting gratuities from a NASA contractor, Mr. Colvin allegedly instructed

OIG investigators not to pursue part of the allegation after he received a

telephone call from a friend who was employed by a NASA contractor. The

senior official had been accused of accepting favors from the NASA

contractor, i.e., free or reduced-cost housing and private club membership.

We learned that Mr. Colvin had questioned the need for further work since

the OIG, in his opinion, had sufficient evidence to take action against the

senior official. Further, because Mr. Colvin had questioned the need for

additional investigative work, the OIG did not pursue the allegation

pertaining to the club membership. Finally, the OIG investigative report

Page 5 GAO/OSI-95-9 Alleged Misconduct by NASA Inspector General
B-259046 

showed that sufficient evidence existed to act on the case and that the

senior official subsequently resigned voluntarily.

Mr. Colvin stated that he had no recollection of having discouraged OIG

staff from pursuing allegations relative to club membership, although he

conceded that it may have happened. However, according to Mr. Colvin, as

a result of a decision made by his headquarters staff, the Defense Contract

Audit Agency is pursuing the allegation concerning the club membership

as a “spin-off” from the original investigation.

Methodology We conducted our investigation from March 1993, when the GAO Hotline

received allegations of possible misconduct, through July 1994. We

conducted it in Washington, D.C.; Slidell, Mississippi; Houston, Texas; Los

Angeles, California; and Cleveland, Ohio. We interviewed NASA-OIG

management officials, as well as approximately 40 current and former OIG

investigators and auditors, to assess the merits of the allegations. In

addition, we reviewed pertinent OIG audit and investigative files and

related correspondence. We also reviewed relevant OIG investigative and

audit policies and guidelines. Finally, we interviewed other NASA officials

purported to have information about the alleged activities.

As requested, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days

from the date of the letter. At that time, we will send copies to the Acting

NASA Inspector General and to the Director of the Office of Management

and Budget and will make copies available to others upon request. If you

have any questions concerning our investigation, please contact me or

Assistant Director Barney Gomez of my staff at (202) 512-6722.

Richard C. Stiener

Director

Page 6 GAO/OSI-95-9 Alleged Misconduct by NASA Inspector General
Page 7 GAO/OSI-95-9 Alleged Misconduct by NASA Inspector General
Appendix I 

Major Contributors to This Report

Office of Special

Investigations,

Washington, D.C.

Barney L. Gomez, Assistant Director for General Crimes and Health Care

Robert J. Gettings, Special Agent

Barbara W. Alsip, Reports Analyst

Office of the General

Counsel, Washington,

D.C.

Glenn G. Wolcott, Assistant General Counsel

Leslie J. Krasner, Attorney Adviser

(600351) Page 8 GAO/OSI-95-9 Alleged Misconduct by NASA Inspector General
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (301) 258-4097 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Mail

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100