Authority of the Special Counsel, Merit Systems Protection

Board, Over Anonymous Allegations of Wrongdoing

Anonymous complaints do not trigger the statutory scheme by which the Office of the 

Special Counsel (OSC), Merit Systems Protection Board, investigates allegations of 

wrongdoing within an agency; however, such complaints may be forwarded to the 

head of the affected agency by the OSC in its discretion, to be dealt with by the 

agency.

July 1, 1981

MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR TH E SPECIAL COUNSEL, 

M ERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

This responds to your inquiry whether the Office of the Special 

Counsel (OSC), Merit Systems Protection Board, has the statutory 

authority to forward anonymous allegations of wrongdoing to the 

heads of the affected agencies,1 pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 1206(b)(2).2 For

‘This question arose because of our earlier opinion that OSC may only forward complaints 

received from federal employees. Memorandum Opinion for the General Counsel, Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, from Larry L. Simms, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, 

March 13, 1981. [ N o t e : The March 13, 1981, Memorandum Opinion appears in this volume at p .77 

supra Ed.]

2 Section 1206(bXl) and (2) of Title 5, United States Code, states:

(1) In any case involving—

(A) any disclosure of information by an employee or applicant for employment 

which the employee or applicant reasonably believes evidences—

(i) a violation of any law, rule, or regulation; or

(ii) mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authonty, or a substantial 

and specific danger to public health or safety,

if the disclosure ts not specifically prohibited by law and if the information is not 

specifically required by Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national 

defense or the conduct of foreign affairs, or

(B) a disclosure by an employee or applicant for employment to the Special 

Counsel of the Merit Systems Protection Board, or to the Inspector General of an 

agency or another employee designated by the head of the agency to receive such 

disclosures of information which the employee or applicant reasonably believes 

evidences—

(1) a violation of any law, rule or regulation; or

(ii) mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial 

and specific danger to public health or safety;

the identity of the employee or applicant may not be disclosed without the consent 

of the employee or applicant during any investigation under subsection (a) of this 

section or under paragraph (3) of this subsection, unless the Special Counsel determines that the disclosure of the identity of the employee or applicant is necessary in 

order to carry out the functions of the Special Counsel.

(2) Whenever the Special Counsel receives information of the type described in 

paragraph (1) of this subsection, the Special Counsel shall promptly transmit such 

information to the appropriate agency head.

215
reasons stated hereafter, w e do not believe that the statute was intended 

to cover such material and we therefore conclude that the material may 

not be forwarded as (b)(2) material. Such material may be forwarded to 

afTected agencies, however, without the provision of (b)(2) being triggered.

Forwarding information pursuant to (b)(2) triggers an elaborate statutory scheme. OSC may require an agency to conduct an investigation 

and submit a detailed written report within 60 days. 5 U.S.C. 

§ 1206(b)(3)(A), (4), 5 C.F.R. § 1252.2 (1980). This report must be 

submitted to Congress, the President and the Special Counsel, 5 U.S.C. 

§ 1206(b)(5)(A), and possibly the Office of Management and Budget. 

Even if OSC does not require an investigation, the head of the agency 

must make a written report within 60 days regarding action taken. Id.,

§ 1206(b)(7), 5 C.F.R. § 1252.3 (1980). Failure to file reports may be 

reported to Congress and the President. 5 U.S.C. § 1206(b)(5)(A). This 

scheme was designed to encourage federal workers to “blow the whistle” if they suspect the existence of wrongdoing in their agency. See

124 Cong. Rec. 27,548, 27,569-72, 34,100, 25,727-28 (1978). It was 

meant both to protect them from reprisals by setting up stringent 

safeguards to protect their identity, see 5 U.S.C. § 1206(b)(8), 5 C.F.R. 

§ 1250.3(c) and App. I (1980), and to assure them that their complaints 

would be looked into seriously by requiring mandatory reports from 

the agencies. Permitting individuals who are unwilling to give their 

names, even with these statutory protections, to trigger these provisions 

would not only consume the finite resources of OSC and the agencies 

but would also turn the law into what its sponsors explicitly said it was 

not—“an open invitation to any disgruntled Federal employee . . . to 

make false allegations of wrongdoings by a Federal agency.” 124 Cong. 

Rec. 27,572 (1978) (remarks of Sen. Dole).

We believe that the statute requires the identification of the complainant in order to effect several purposes. First, identification ensures 

that the complainant is “an employee or applicant for employment” as 

required by the statute. 5 U.S.C. § 1206(b)(1)(A), (B). See also 5 U.S.C. 

§ 1206(b)(3)(B). Second, it allows the Special Counsel to solicit additional information, if necessary, from the complainant when determining whether there is a “substantial likelihood” that the information 

discloses a violation o f the law and thus to eliminate the drain of 

investigating fraudulent or frivolous claims. Third, it permits the Special Counsel to comply with the mandate of the statute that he “sh air

inform the complainant of the agency’s report on its investigation or 

action. 5 U.S.C. § 1206(b)(5)(A), (7) (emphasis added).

This is not to say that OSC must ignore anonymous complaints. 

Nothing in the statute forbids OSC from forwarding such complaints to 

an agency—the statute only precludes them being sent as official (b)(2)

216
material.3 Therefore, while anonymous information should not be forwarded pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 1206(b)(2), and reports on it should not 

be required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 1206(b)(3) and (7), the information 

may be forwarded at OSC’s discretion—and dealt with at the agency’s 

discretion—in order to identify possible problems.

L a r r y L. S im m s

Deputy Assistant Attorney General

Office o f Legal Counsel

3 In addition, OSC is empowered to investigate possible prohibited personnel practices, even in the 

absence of an allegation, 5 U.S.C. § 1206(a)(3), and several other classes of improper conduct, 5 U S.C. 

§ 1206(e), 5 C F.R § 1251 1(b), (c), regardless of the source.