UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community

(U) Evaluation of Media Claims Regarding 

Non-Reporting by the National Reconnaissance 

Office of Certain 2010 Admissions of Potential 

Crimes

Report Number IO-2013-007

February 2014

Important Notice

This report contains information that the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community has determined is 

confidential, sensitive, or protected by Federal Law, including protection from public disclosure under the Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA) 5 U.S.C. § 552. Recipients may not further disseminate this information without the express 

permission of the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community personnel. Accordingly, the use, 

dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this information to or by unauthorized or unintended recipients may be 

unlawful. Persons disclosing this information publicly or to others not having an official need to know are subject to 

possible administrative, civil, and/or criminal penalties. This report should be safeguarded to prevent improper disclosure 

at all times. Authorized recipients who receive requests to release this report should refer the requestor to the Office of 

the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community.
UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

Page 2 of 33

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

(U) Table of Contents

(U) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................3

(U) BACKGROUND....................................................................................5

(U) OBJECTIVE, SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY ...................................11

(U) FINDINGS...........................................................................................12

(U) Media Claims Regarding Non-Reporting of Two Admissions of Potential 

Crimes Are Partially Correct..................................................................... 12

(U) SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................19

(U) APPENDIX A: LAWS AND GUIDANCE.............................................20

(U) APPENDIX B: REPORTING TIMELINE — CONTRACTOR 

ADMISSION ......................................................................................24

(U) APPENDIX C: REPORTING TIMELINE — AIR FORCE OFFICER 

ADMISSION ......................................................................................26

(U) APPENDIX D: ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................28

(U) APPENDIX E: MANAGEMENT COMMENTS.....................................29
UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

Page 3 of 33

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

(U) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

(U) On 10 July 2012, the McClatchy Company published an article claiming that the 

National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) had not reported to local law enforcement 

admissions of child molestation and viewing of child pornography by a contractor and 

an Air Force officer.1 According to the newspaper article, the individuals voluntarily 

made those admissions during polygraph sessions administered by the NRO 

during 2010. 

(U) At the request of the NRO Director, the NRO Office of Inspector General (OIG) 

conducted a special review of the NRO’s polygraph program administration and 

execution.2 Subsequently, Senator Charles E. Grassley requested the NRO OIG to 

review that program as well as the NRO’s crimes reporting process. Due to the 

NRO OIG’s role in the crimes reporting process, the NRO OIG recused itself from 

evaluating the claims of unreported admissions of potential crimes. The NRO OIG 

requested that the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community 

(IC IG) examine this matter on its behalf. 

(U) This limited scope review is the first of two planned IC IG reports on the evaluation 

that we conducted in response to the NRO OIG request and Congressional interest. 

The objective of this portion of the evaluation was to determine whether the claims

made in the McClatchy Company article were accurate.

(U) Highlights

(U) We determined that the NRO reported to the Department of Justice (DOJ), in 

accordance with Federal reporting requirements, a June 2010 polygraph admission of 

viewing child pornography and molesting a child that was made by a contractor 

undergoing a security clearance review for access to classified NRO programs. 

However, the NRO did not report similar admissions made by an Air Force officer in a 

May 2010 polygraph examination to appropriate Federal investigative agencies. 

Instead, the NRO reported those admissions to an Air Force office responsible for 

adjudicating security clearances and not to the Air Force Office of Special 

Investigations or DOJ that are responsible for criminal investigations. 

(U) We recommend that the NRO document in policy its processes to address the 

reporting of admissions of potential crimes by military personnel and the reporting of 

child abuse.

 1 (U) National Reconnaissance Office Hasn’t Told Police of Crime Confession, Marisa Taylor, 

McClatchy Newspapers (McClathcydc.com), July 10, 2012 and Letter from the Ranking 

Member of the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary to the NRO Inspector General, 

August 13, 2012. 

2 (U//FOUO) NRO OIG. Special Review of the NRO Polygraph Program. (Project Number 2012-006 S).
UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

Page 4 of 33

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

(U) Management Comments and Our Response

(U//FOUO) The NRO Office of General Counsel and Office of Security and 

Counterintelligence provided a consolidated response to the findings and 

recommendations in this report. Both offices concurred with the recommendations. 

However, the OGC stated that it is not obligated by law or otherwise to report 

violations of state crimes to DOJ even if such crimes could be assimilated into Federal 

offenses per the Federal Assimilative Crimes Act. The NRO OGC also identified several 

enhancements it has made to its crimes referral process. Subsequent to completion of 

our work, the NRO issued guidance that satisfied several recommendations made in 

this report. 

(U) The NRO OIG provided technical comments that we incorporated as appropriate. 

(U) See Appendix E for the NRO’s official comments and technical comments. 
UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

Page 5 of 33

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

(U) BACKGROUND

(U) Federal Crimes Reporting Requirements 

(U) As both a Defense Agency and an Intelligence Community (IC) element, the NRO 

must comply with Federal requirements for reporting potential Federal crimes, 

including some violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), of which 

NRO personnel3 become aware.4 Under Title 28 United States Code (U.S.C.),

Section 535(b) 

[a]ny information, allegation, or complaint received in a department or agency of 

the executive branch of government relating to violations of Title 18 involving 

Government officers and employees shall be expeditiously reported to the 

Attorney General by the head of the department or agency, unless—

(1) the responsibility to perform an investigation with respect thereto is 

specifically assigned otherwise by another provision of law; or 

(2) ...the Attorney General directs otherwise with respect to a specified 

class of information, allegation, or complaint.5

(U) In addition to an obligation for Federal employees to report potential 

Federal crimes, provisions in Executive Orders (E.O.) require heads of agencies to 

report potential Federal crimes to DOJ. For IC elements, E.O. 12333 Section 1.7(a)6

requires IC senior officials to 

report to the Attorney General possible violations of federal criminal laws by 

employees and of specified federal criminal laws by any other person as 

provided in procedures agreed upon by the Attorney General and the head of 

the department or agency concerned, in a manner consistent with the 

protection of intelligence sources and methods, as specified in those 

procedures.7

 3 (U) NRO personnel include government civilians, contractors, and military members. 

4 (U) Information regarding a potential Federal crime is required to be reported. In some instances, 

information of a state crime may also be reported if the violation could be assimilated as a Federal crime 

under the Federal Assimilative Crimes Act or Article 134 of the UCMJ. See 18 U.S.C. § 13 and 

10 U.S.C. § 934. Therefore, in some cases, information of a violation of a state crime is reportable in 

accordance with Federal criminal reporting requirements.

5 (U) 28 U.S.C. § 535(b) (2006). Title 18, which is the criminal and penal code of the Federal Government 

of the United States, codifies Federal crimes. Title 18 outlines the elements of several Federal and 

criminal procedures including sexual exploitation and other abuses of children; terrorism; and fraud and 

false statements.

6 (U) In the revision to E.O.12333, that is cited in the Memorandum of Understanding: Reporting of 

Information Concerning Federal Crimes, paragraph 1.7(a) was renumbered as section 1.6(b).

7 (U) E.O. 12333, § 1.6 (b), 46 FR 59941 (1981). Also, under E.O. 12968, IC employees who hold security 

clearances are encouraged, although not obligated, to report any information that raises doubts as to 

whether another employee’s continued eligibility for access to classified information is clearly consistent 

with national security interests. Information or allegations of suspected criminal violations would be 

considered as part of a department’s or agency’s determination of an employee’s continued eligibility for 

access to classified information. E.O. 12968 § 6.2 (b), Employee Responsibilities, 60 FR 151 (1995).
UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

Page 6 of 33

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

(U) In 1995, the Attorney General (AG) and heads of IC elements issued a 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU): Reporting of Information Concerning Federal 

Crimes (hereafter referred to as the “1995 MOU”).8 The 1995 MOU established 

procedures by which each IC element shall report to the AG and to Federal 

investigative agencies information concerning possible Federal crimes committed by 

IC employees and specified Federal crimes committed by non-employees. The 

1995 MOU identifies specific criminal acts that are reportable when an Agency has 

information that a non-employee has committed, is committing, or will commit them. 

Under the 1995 MOU, reportable offenses include, but are not limited to, intentional 

serious physical harm (such as sexual assault), violent crimes, and any offense, that 

“if committed in the presence of a reasonably prudent and law-abiding person, would 

cause that person to immediately report the conduct directly to the police.”9

(U) Under the 1995 MOU, IC Offices of Generals Counsel (OGC) and OIGs share 

responsibility for receiving reports of Federal criminal information concerning 

IC elements. The 1995 MOU delegates authority to an agency’s General Counsel (GC)

to determine whether such information must be reported to the National Security 

Division of DOJ or Federal investigative agencies. 

(U) The 1995 MOU also established procedures for the OGC within each IC element to 

report to the AG and Federal investigative agencies information about possible Federal 

crimes that was collected while the IC element performed designated intelligence 

activities, unless specific conditions are met that would exempt reporting the potential 

crime. Those conditions include information that was: 

• collected and disseminated to it by another department, agency, or organization 

so long as the receiving agency does not uncover additional crimes information 

during its analysis;

• alleged to have occurred more than 10 years prior to the date when the crimes 

became known to the agency and are not part of a continuing pattern of 

behavior, unless the information is related to homicide or espionage; 

• received by a Department of Defense (DOD) intelligence component and 

concerns a Defense intelligence component employee who is subject to the 

UCMJ or a civilian who is accused of criminal behavior related to his/her duties 

or position. This exemption applies only when the information is submitted to 

 8 (U) Memorandum of Understanding: Reporting of Information Concerning Federal Crimes. 1995. While the 

NRO is not a signatory of the 1995 MOU, it abides by that MOU. 

9 (U) Id.
UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

Page 7 of 33

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

and investigated by the appropriate Defense Criminal Investigative Organization 

(DCIO).10

• previously reported to an OIG.11

(U) DOD Directives and Instructions12 require DOD organizations—including the NRO 

— that conduct polygraph examinations to report admissions of serious criminal 

nature and counterintelligence, law enforcement, or security information developed 

during the course of a polygraph exam to appropriate authorities. 

(U) An NRO instruction also required the NRO GC and IG to report possible violations 

of Federal criminal laws.13 

(U) Reporting Requirements for Information on Suspected Child Abuse

(U) Provisions in Federal law identify requirements for “covered professionals” to report 

credible information of suspected child abuse, to include child pornography and child 

molestation.14 While several provisions of Title 18 U.S.C. Chapter 109A, Sexual Abuse 

Crimes, prohibit sexual offenses against children, those provisions are limited to the 

Federal jurisdiction of the United States. Therefore, unless the allegations provide a 

basis to apply the Federal jurisdiction of the United States, most suspected child 

abuse crimes are prosecuted under applicable state laws that do not trigger an 

affirmative reporting obligation for IC employees under the 1995 MOU.15 However, 

certain IC employees known as “covered professionals,” are subject to Federal 

 10 (U) DOD Instruction 5505.3, Initiation of Investigations by Defense Criminal Investigative Organizations,

(March 24, 2011), defines DCIOs as the U.S. Army Criminal Investigative Command, Air Force Office of 

Special Investigations, Naval Criminal Investigative Service, and Defense Criminal Investigative Service.

11 (U) IGs are required to report to the AG whenever there are reasonable grounds to believe there has 

been a violation of Federal criminal law. See Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, 

5 U.S.C. App. 3 § 4. Nothing in the 1995 MOU alters this reporting requirement nor an employee’s 

obligations, either by statute or by agency regulation, to report potential criminal behavior to the IG. If an 

IG determines that the reported information is not subject to its jurisdiction and that the information may 

be reportable under the 1995 MOU, the IG may forward the information to DOJ or to the Agency’s 

General Counsel for a determination whether the 1995 MOU requires reporting of the information to DOJ 

in accordance with the 1995 MOU.

12 (U) DOD Directive 5210.48, Polygraph and Credibility Assessment Program, (25 January 2007) and 

DOD Instruction 5210.91, Polygraph and Credibility Assessment Procedures, (12 August 2010).

13 (U) Oversight Corporate Business Process Instruction, Obligation to Report Evidence of Possible Violations 

of Federal Criminal Law and Illegal Intelligence Activities, 80-3 (August 2009).

14 (U) 42 U.S.C. § 13031 et seq.

15 (U) 18 U.S.C. § 7. For example, if the information states that suspected child abuse is conducted on a 

Federal installation, on Federal property, or by a member of the Armed Services, then Federal jurisdiction 

may attach. If covered professionals fail to report such suspected child abuse pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 13031, the failures to make those reports are themselves reportable as Federal crimes under 

the 1995 MOU. Again, NRO OGC makes determinations about which admissions are reportable under 

the 1995 MOU.
UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

Page 8 of 33

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

requirements to report information of suspected child abuse to appropriate state and 

local authorities. 

(U) Under Title 42 U.S.C. § 13031:

A person who, while engaged in a professional capacity or activity described 

...on Federal land or in a federally operated (or contracted) facility, learns of 

facts that give reason to suspect that a child has suffered an incident of child 

abuse, shall as soon as possible make a report of the suspected abuse to 

the...[appropriate agency].16

(U) The statute outlines several professions that are “covered” for purposes of this 

reporting requirement; those professions include psychologists, psychiatrists, and law 

enforcement personnel.17 Further, the AG designated local law enforcement agencies 

or local child protective services agencies to receive and investigate reports of child 

abuse or to protect child abuse victims in the jurisdiction of the Federal land area or 

Federal facility in question, provided there are written agreements with such nonFederal agencies to accept such reporting.18 Where no such written agreement exists, 

the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) serves as the designated agency to receive 

and investigate reports of child abuse made pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 13031.19 Title 42 

also creates training requirements for covered professionals on their reporting 

obligations, the use of uniform reporting forms, and training on identifying abused 

and neglected children.20 As such, if covered IC employees acting in their official 

capacities were to learn of facts that would give reason for them to suspect that a child 

has suffered an incident of child abuse, those officials would be required to report the 

information to the appropriate local law enforcement agencies, local child protective 

services, or the FBI.

 16 (U) 42 U.S.C. § 13031(a). “Child abuse” means the physical or mental injury, sexual abuse or 

exploitation, or negligent treatment of a child to include sexual molestation and child pornography. 

See 42 U.S.C. § 13031(c).

17 (U) 42 U.S.C. § 13031(b)(2) & (6). While each IC element should identify those “covered professionals” 

within their respective organization, psychologists, psychiatrists, and law enforcement personnel are 

among the more common professionals within IC elements that are required to meet this reporting 

requirement. Under the Inspectors General Act of 1978, investigators within the OIG are considered “law 

enforcement personnel,” and, therefore, are “covered professionals” with an obligation to report suspected 

information of child abuse to appropriate authorities under 42 § 13031. 

18 (U) 42 U.S.C. § 13031(d); and 28 C.F.R. § 81.2, 61 FR 7706 (1996).

19 (U) 28 C.F.R. § 81.3, 61 FR 7706 (1996).

20 (U) 42 U.S.C. § 13031(e) & (h). Ambiguities exist within the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 13031. 

The applicability of this section to a Federal facility being used in the IC is not clear as most IC elements, 

like the NRO, do not have facilities where children are cared for or reside. However, given the nature of 

the reporting requirement and the severity of the potential crimes, the statutory application of the 

reporting requirements should be interpreted broadly. See Opinion O.L.C. West Law 5885536 (2012). 
UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

Page 9 of 33

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

(U) A covered professional who is identified in Title 42 and who fails to report 

suspected child abuse is subject to Federal criminal penalties under 

18 U.S.C. § 2258.21 However, covered professionals reporting information of 

suspected child abuse have immunity in civil and criminal actions brought against 

them for carrying out these reporting obligations if such reporting was made in good 

faith. Finally, if the covered professionals fail to report such suspected child abuse 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §13031, the failures to make those reports are themselves 

reportable Federal crimes under the 1995 MOU. 

(U) Despite these reporting obligations, at the time when NRO officials reviewed the 

polygraph admissions of suspected child abuse that are the subject of this report, the 

NRO did not have policies that articulated the reporting requirements for NRO covered 

professionals to report such information in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 13031. The 

lack of policies potentially contributed to failures to report those admissions.

Moreover, in 2010, the NRO did not have a policy that encouraged all NRO employees 

to report information of suspected child abuse to NRO “covered professionals.”

Therefore, the only affirmative reporting obligations known to NRO Office of Security or

Counterintelligence (OS&CI), OGC, and OIG personnel at that time were for 

information of violations of Federal crimes, which would not include the majority of 

child abuse allegations as those are generally state crimes. 

(U) Crimes Reporting Roles and Responsibilities for NRO Officials

(U) In 2010, the NRO OS&CI, OGC, and OIG had responsibilities for identifying, 

referring, and reporting potential criminal acts and violations of Federal criminal 

laws.22 NRO policy required the NRO OS&CI to collect and adjudicate polygraphderived information and refer information about potential violations of criminal law to 

the NRO OGC, OIG, Counterintelligence Division (CID), or to other government 

organizations. 

(U//FOUO) Within OS&CI, the Personnel Security Division (PSD) is responsible for 

personnel security processing and access requests for all NRO-sponsored personnel. 

Within PSD, the following branches and staff have responsibilities related to crimes 

reporting:

 21 (U) 18 U.S.C. § 2258. Failure to report suspected child abuse may result in a criminal fine or 

imprisonment of less than one year or both. 

22 (U) For purposes of this report, we use the term “refer” when discussing notification of admissions of 

potential crimes that are shared internally with other NRO components. We use the term “report” when 

discussing notification made by OGC, OIG, or the Special Actions Staff to external organizations, such 

as DOJ.
UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO 

 Page 10 of 33

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

• Polygraph Management Branch (PMB

 

• Adjudication Branch (AB)

• Special Actions Staff (SAS) 

(U) Under NRO Instruction 80-3,23 the NRO OGC is responsible for reviewing 

admissions of possible criminal acts and violations of Federal criminal law not related 

to NRO funds, programs, property, operations, or activities. In accordance with 

E.O. 12333 crimes reporting procedures and the 1995 MOU, OGC is responsible for 

reporting potential crimes to DOJ or other law enforcement agencies when the OGC 

determines that a reasonable basis existed to believe that a Federal crime was, is 

being, or would be committed.

(U) In 2009, the NRO Director designated the NRO OIG as responsible for conducting 

preliminary investigative inquiries into potential criminal acts and violations of Federal 

criminal law that involve NRO funds, programs, property, operations, or activities.24 

At that time, the NRO OIG was not yet subject to reporting requirements in the 

Inspector General Act of 1978 (IG Act).25 On 7 October 2010, the NRO OIG became a 

Designated Federal Entity under the IG Act, and the OIG’s authorities and 

 23 (U) NRO Instruction, 80-3, Obligation to Report Evidence of Possible Violations of Federal Criminal Law 

and Illegal Intelligence Activities. (August 2009). 

24 (U) Id. 

25 (U) 5 U.S.C. Appendix. 3 § 4(d).
UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

Page 11 of 33

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

responsibilities changed in accordance with the Inspector General Act of 1978, as 

amended. Since then, the NRO OIG is no longer covered as a reporting entity under 

the NRO instruction, and the NRO OIG has a statutory obligation to report 

expeditiously to the AG whenever the IG has reasonable grounds to believe there has 

been a violation of Federal criminal law.26

(U) OBJECTIVE, SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

(U) Objective

(U) In response to a request from the NRO OIG and Senator Grassley’s concerns, we 

conducted a limited, focused review of NRO reporting of two admissions of potential 

criminal activity that a contractor and an Air Force officer voluntarily made during 

2010 polygraph sessions administered by the NRO. Those admissions involved 

viewing child pornography and child molestation.

(U) Our objective was to determine whether media claims that the NRO did not report 

those admissions of potential crimes to appropriate investigative authorities were

accurate. 

(U) Scope 

(U) We limited the scope of this report to two voluntary admissions of potential crimes 

and UCMJ violations made by a contractor and an Air Force officer during 2010 

polygraphs administered by the NRO. We reviewed those specific admissions because 

they were identified in a McClatchy Company article, and Senator Grassley requested 

in a 2012 letter sent to NRO OIG that the NRO OIG determine the veracity of those

claims and whether the confessions were reported to proper law enforcement officials 

for investigation.27 In addition, we are conducting an ongoing broad-scope review of 

the NRO crimes reporting process. We expect to issue that report later in 2013.

(U) Methodology

(U) To determine whether the NRO reported those two admissions in accordance with 

Federal laws and other guidance, we reviewed Federal laws, Executive Orders, 

Intelligence Community Directives, and NRO and Department of Defense (DOD) 

policies related to reporting potential criminal acts and violations of Federal criminal 

law that were in effect in 2010. We also interviewed NRO officials responsible for 

 26 (U) Id. See also, 18 U.S.C. § 2285.

27 (U) The NRO OIG recused itself from reviewing those admissions of potential UCMJ violations or crimes 

because of the NRO OIG role in the reporting process.
UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

Page 12 of 33

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

identifying and reporting admissions of potential criminal acts and violations of 

Federal crimes made by NRO personnel and applicants during polygraph 

examinations. In addition, we reviewed NRO documentation maintained by the 

NRO OS&CI, OGC, and OIG for the two individuals identified in the 10 July 2010 

McClatchy Company article.

(U) We conducted our work in accordance with Council of Inspectors General on 

Integrity and Efficiency 2012 Quality Standards for Inspections and Evaluation. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform our work to obtain sufficient, 

appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our objectives. 

(U) FINDINGS

(U) Media Claims Regarding Non-Reporting of Two Admissions of Potential 

Crimes Are Partially Correct

(U) In July 2012, the McClatchy Company published articles claiming the NRO had 

not notified local law enforcement authorities of two separate admissions by a 

contractor and an Air Force officer during NRO-administered polygraph examinations. 

The admissions involved possession of child pornography and engaging in child 

molestation. The media claims are partially correct.

(U) The NRO reported to DOJ, in accordance with Federal reporting requirements, a 

June 2010 polygraph admission of viewing child pornography and engaging in child 

molestation that a contractor voluntarily made while undergoing a security clearance 

review for access to classified NRO programs. However, the NRO did not report to 

Federal investigative organizations admissions of viewing child pornography on a 

Pentagon computer or child molestation that were made by an Air Force officer during 

a May 2010 polygraph examination. The NRO reported the admissions to an Air Force 

office responsible for adjudicating security clearances and not to the Air Force Office of 

Special Investigations (AFOSI) or DOJ that are responsible for conducting 

investigations of potential crimes. As a result, neither military nor Federal law 
UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

Page 13 of 33

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

enforcement investigated the Air Force officer’s admissions of potential crimes or 

UCMJ violations.28 

A. (U) NRO Reported Admission Made by a Contractor

(U//FOUO) During an NRO-administered polygraph examination conducted as 

part of the NRO’s process for determining whether to grant security clearance 

access to classified NRO programs, a contractor admitted to possessing child 

pornography and engaging in child molestation. Upon notification, NRO OGC 

reported the admissions of the potential crime to DOJ in August 2010 and notified 

the OIG. In November 2010, the NRO OIG also referred the admission to the FBI’s 

Innocent Images International Task Force, which includes local law enforcement.29 

The OIG referred cases to the FBI when notified by the NRO OGC that the DOJ has 

not responded to the initial referral OGC made to DOJ. However, the NRO’s 

internal adjudication process delayed referral of the admission to OGC for about 

four weeks, and staffing issues within OGC further delayed notification to DOJ by 

a week. 

(U) In accordance with provisions in law and policies, the NRO’s reporting 

responsibilities are fulfilled following submission of admissions of potential crimes 

to DOJ or other law enforcement organizations. Furthermore, the NRO is not 

required to, and does not, track actions taken by DOJ or investigative agencies 

regarding reported admissions. As a result, the NRO was unaware that the FBI did 

not pursue the case until 2012, following media inquiries. See Appendix B for a 

detailed timeline describing the NRO’s actions related to reporting the admission.

 28 (U) In this case, the Air Force officer’s admission of viewing child pornography on a Government 

computer involves an activity that is a potential violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A, the Child Pornography 

Prevention Act, and is reportable to DOJ under the 1995 MOU. Child molestation is a potential state 

crime, and if the admission was made to an NRO covered professional, it would be reportable to state and 

local child protective services under 42 U.S.C. § 13031. Further, prior to 2012, child molestation may 

have been a potential violation of UCMJ Article 120, and possibly reportable to DOJ and Federal 

investigative agencies. Between 2007 and June 2012, UCMJ Article 120 made rape and sexual abuse of a 

child punishable by court martial. However, amendments to the UCMJ made by the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 added a new article to the UCMJ that addresses only child sexual 

offenses. Those changes replaced or superceded punitive articles applicable to sexual offenses committed 

during the period 1 October 2008 through 27 June 2012. As of 28 June 2012, the UCMJ contains an 

Article that is specific to sexual abuse or sexual assault of a child. See Section 541, Pub. L. 112-81, 125 

Stat 1298, (31 December 2011); 10 U.S.C. § 920b. Finally, even if Article 120 did not cover child 

molestation, admissions of such activities may have been assimilated as a Federal crime under the 

Federal Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 13 or the UCMJ, Article 134, 10 U.S.C. § 934. Both provide 

jurisdictional mechanisms for state offenses to be tried as Federal offenses when a legal determination 

demonstrates that the requisite jurisdictional criteria are satisfied.

29 (U) FBI agents and representatives from state, local, and international law enforcement agencies 

comprise the Task Force that collaborates in online undercover investigations geared toward stopping 

child exploitation. 
UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

Page 14 of 33

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

B. (U) NRO Did Not Report Admissions Made by an Air Force Officer to Law 

Enforcement Organizations

(U) NRO policy and the 1995 MOU designated the NRO OGC as responsible for 

immediately reporting to DOJ allegations of evidence concerning possible violations 

of Federal criminal law. 

(U//FOUO) In 2006, the Air Force granted a clearance to an Air Force officer. He 

later required access to NRO systems as part of his assignment to the NRO, and 

the NRO required him to take and pass a polygraph examination to obtain this 

access. During a polygraph administered by the NRO in May 2010, the Officer

voluntarily admitted that he viewed child pornography on both Pentagon and home 

computers and that he was sexually attracted to his young daughters.30

(U) NRO Reported Admission to Organizations Responsible for 

Adjudicating Security Clearances, but Not to Law Enforcement

(U//FOUO) According to NRO officials, the Air Force officer was not yet assigned to 

the NRO. Therefore, the Air Force retained responsibility for adjudicating his 

clearance and for investigating the admissions of potential crimes. However, this 

did not relieve the NRO from its reporting responsibilities under the 1995 MOU or 

Title 28.31 Instead, the former Assistant General Counsel within the NRO OGC 

advised NRO OS&CI to refer the admissions to the Air Force Central Adjudication 

Facility (AFCAF). AFCAF had responsibility for granting and rescinding clearances 

for Air Force personnel.32 While NRO OS&CI notified AFCAF of the admissions, on 

advice of the former NRO OGC Assistant General Counsel, the NRO did not notify 

the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI), the Officer’s commanding 

officer, or the DOJ. The Assistant General Counsel within the NRO OGC advised 

 30 (U) Viewing child pornography on a government computer is an activity that violates 18 U.S.C § 2252A. 

Viewing child pornography and engaging in child molestation also would be conduct of a nature to bring 

discredit upon the Armed Forces and are punishable under the UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 934. See e.g. United 

States v. James, 55 Military Justice Reporter (M.J.) 297 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces 

(C.A.A.F.) 2001) (possessing child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A as assimilated by 

Article 134, UCMJ 10 USC § 934); United States v. Mason, 60 M.J. 15 (C.A.A.F. 2004) (knowingly 

receiving child pornography in violation of the Child Pornography Prevention Act, assimilated in the 

UCMJ as “another crime and offense not capital” under clause 3 of the general article; and United States 

v. Reeves, 62 M.J. 88, 92 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (possession of child pornography under Article 134 specifically 

charged as “clause 3” offenses, with 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2) as the “crimes and offenses not capital.”).

Thus, the admissions made by the Air Force officer were reportable under the 1995 MOU as activities that 

are potential violations of the UCMJ or Federal crimes. 

31 (U) 28 U.S.C. 535 (b) (2006).

32 (U) The AFCAF is responsible for determining who within the Air Force and among certain contractors 

is eligible to hold a security clearance and have access to Sensitive Compartmented Information. 

The AFOSI is a Federal law enforcement and investigative agency and is responsible for conducting 

criminal investigations of a variety of serious offenses and illegal activities that undermine the mission of 

the U.S. Air Force or DOD.
UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

Page 15 of 33

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

NRO officials that, based on his understanding of the reporting of prior criminal 

admissions made by military personnel, AFCAF would refer the case to AFOSI.

(U//FOUO) The current OGC Judge Advocate General (JAG) does not believe that 

AFCAF referred the admission to AFOSI because AFCAF did not revoke the 

Air Force officer’s security clearance. Moreover, the Officer continued to work for 

the Air Force until his retirement in 2012. This NRO official explained that the 

NRO OGC reported the Officer’s admissions to DOJ in July 2012 after discovering 

that the Officer retired from the Air Force and was supporting a defense contract.33

(U) We determined that the NRO’s use of incorrect reporting procedures, in this 

case, resulted from:

• the lack of documented processes for reporting potential crimes committed 

by military personnel;

• inaccurate belief by OGC and OS&CI officials that AFCAF would notify 

AFOSI about potential crimes reported to AFCAF for adjudicative purposes; 

and

• OGC and OS&CI officials’ belief that reporting to AFCAF satisfied Title 28 

reporting requirements. 

(U//FOUO) As part of corrective actions implemented by the NRO in 

February 2013, the NRO OGC developed a process to refer admissions of potential 

crimes made by military personnel to DOJ and the respective service commander 

and JAG. The NRO OGC also notifies DOJ if OGC determines that a Federal crime 

was committed. As of October 2013 when we completed our work, the NRO OGC 

was finalizing an instruction that includes those practices.34 The NRO OGC 

completed and issued the NRO instruction in January 2014. 

 33 (U) According to the NRO OGC JAG, in July 2012 following inquiries by the media, the NRO Air Force 

Personnel Director confirmed the Officer’s retirement in the Air Force Personnel System. To determine 

whether the Officer continued to hold a clearance, OS&CI conducted a search in Scattered Castles, the IC 

security clearance repository and authoritative database of individuals in DOD and the IC who hold Top 

Secret and Sensitive Compartmented Information clearances. OS&CI determined that the Officer was 

briefed into access as a contractor for the U.S. Army in September 2011.

34 (U) In October 2013, the IC IG completed its review of the admissions discussed in this report. 

However, we did not finalize this report for release until the end of January 2014 due to a laspse in 

appropriations during October 2013 and a request from the NRO to extend the time period for 

commenting on this report from 30 days to 60 days.
UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

Page 16 of 33

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

(U) Management Comments: 

(U) The NRO OGC and OS&CI concurred with the recommendation. In its official

response to this report, the NRO OGC stated that it is developing an instruction 

that will delineate the steps required when reviewing and processing potential 

civilian or military referrals. Subsequently, on 22 January 2014, the NRO OGC 

issued NRO Instruction 80-2-1, Federal Crimes Reporting. The instruction 

delineates the OGC process for reporting admissions of potential crimes and UCMJ 

violations made by military personnel. The instruction also identifies the OGC as 

responsible for notifying DOJ and/or military commanders and JAGs of potential 

Federal crimes and UCMJ violations. After reviewing the instruction, we believe it 

satisfies recommendation 1A, and therefore, we consider this recommendation 

closed. Because the instruction does not require notification to DCIOs when 

military personnel make admissions of potential crimes or UCMJ violations, we are 

not closing recommendation 1B. See Appendix E for the NRO’s complete 

comments.

(U) Notification to NRO OIG Was Delayed

(U//FOUO) OS&CI did not notify the NRO OIG of the Air Force officer’s admission 

of viewing child pornography when he made it in 2010. There was no requirement 

in NRO policy at the time of the admission for OS&CI to notify the NRO OIG. 

(U) RECOMMENDATION: 

1. (U) To ensure that the NRO follows its process and to 

eliminate the potential for future confusion regarding the NRO 

offices responsible for notifying external agencies when 

military personnel make admissions of potential crimes, we 

recommend that:

1A. (U) NRO OGC formally document in NRO guidance a 

process for reporting admissions of potential crimes and 

UCMJ violations made by military personnel.

1B. (U) NRO identify in formal guidance the NRO 

components that are responsible for reporting to

Defense Criminal Investigative Organizations, the 

military commander and JAG, DOJ, or other 

organizations such as local law enforcement.
UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

Page 17 of 33

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

NRO OGC did not notify the NRO OIG of the admission until 25 July 2012 during a 

meeting with the new NRO General Counsel. The OIG reported the admission to 

the FBI and local law enforcement on 27 July 2012.35

(U//FOUO) In September 2010, the National Security Agency OIG peer review of 

NRO OIG operations identified delayed notification of child pornography cases as a 

serious information access issue for the NRO OIG. The National Security Agency 

OIG recommended that the NRO establish a process for NRO OS&CI to notify 

NRO OIG Investigations of admissions of potential criminal conduct and violations 

of Federal law involving child pornography simultaneous with OS&CI’s notification 

to OGC.36

(U) As part of corrective actions implemented by the NRO in July 2012, the NRO 

established a process to notify the NRO OIG Investigations concurrently with NRO 

OGC when personnel and applicants make admissions of potential crimes involving 

child exploitation. However, as of October 2013 when we completed our work for 

this report, the NRO had neither formalized the concurrent notification process nor 

identified the OIG role as the point of contact to report allegations of child abuse

offenses, to include molestation, in its guidance or operating procedures. Also, the 

NRO OIG had not updated its instructions or finalized changes to its investigations 

manual to reflect its expanded responsibility as the point of contact for DOJ 

inquiries related to OGC reports about child-related crimes. Therefore, a risk 

existed that the NRO may stray from following those newly established practices.

 35 (U) NRO OIG conducts law enforcement activities, and certain positions within OIGs are considered 

“law enforcement personnel.” Therefore, under a broad interpretation of “law enforcement personnel,” 

certain OIG personnel are “covered professionals” and are obligated to report information of suspected 

child abuse under 42 U.S.C. § 13031. See Opinion O.L.C. West Law 5885536 (2012); Inspector General 

Act of 1978, as amended, 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3 § 7(a) which authorizes Inspectors General to receive and 

investigate allegations of violations of law including information of a specific danger to the public health 

and safety; 28 C.F.R. § 20.3 which authorizes OIGs to receive Federal criminal information as a “criminal 

justice agency”; and 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C) which authorizes a Freedom of Information Act exemption for 

IG information collected for law enforcement purposes..

36 (U//FOUO) National Security Agency Memorandum for Inspector General National Reconnaissance 

Office, Letter of Observations: Quality Assessment Review of the Investigative Operations of the Office of 

Inspector General, National Reconnaissance Office, June 7-11, 2010. This report was issued on 

1 September 2010.
UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

Page 18 of 33

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

(U) Management Comments: 

(U//FOUO) The NRO OGC and OS&CI concurred with these recommendations. 

However, the NRO OGC stated that “it is not obligated by law, or otherwise, to 

report violations of state crimes to DOJ, even if such crimes could be assimilated 

into Federal offenses pursuant to the Federal Assimilative Crimes Act.” While we 

agree that currently there is no legal obligation to report violations of state crimes 

to DOJ (with a few exceptions), a legal determination as to whether such offenses 

could be assimilated into Federal offenses should be conducted, and if the requisite 

jurisdictional criteria are satisfied, such crimes should be reported to DOJ or other 

appropriate law enforcement officials. 

(U) In November 2013, the NRO OS&CI revised its operating procedures to 

concurrently refer relevant admissions to OGC and OIG. In January 2014, the 

OGC issued Instruction 80-2-1, Federal Crimes Reporting, that also requires 

concurrent notification of potential Federal crimes to the NRO OGC and OIG. 

We consider these actions to be responsive to recommendation 2C, and accordingly

have closed recommendation 2C. 

(U) RECOMMENDATION:

2. (U) To reinforce recently implemented practices to 

ensure timely and concurrent notification to the OIG 

of admissions of crimes related to child abuse and the 

expanded OIG role and responsibility, we recommend 

that:

2A. (U) OIG finalize changes to its investigations 

manual and operating instruction to include 

incorporating the OIG role as the point of contact 

for child abuse crimes;

2B. (U) OS&CI update policies and operating 

procedures to identify the circumstances and 

processes for concurrent referral of admissions to 

OGC and OIG; and

2C. (U) OGC formalize in NRO guidance that the OIG 

is the point of contact for child abuse crimes and 

that written reports sent to DOJ should identify 

the OIG as the point of contact for child-related 

crimes.
UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

Page 19 of 33

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

(U) SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

1. (U) To ensure that the NRO follows its process, and to eliminate the 

potential for future confusion regarding the NRO offices responsible 

for notifying external agencies when military personnel make 

admissions of potential crimes, we recommend that: 

1A. (U) NRO OGC formally document in NRO policy a process for 

reporting admissions of potential crimes and UCMJ violations 

by military personnel.

1B. (U) NRO identify in formal policy the NRO components that are 

responsible for notifying Defense Criminal Investigative 

Organizations, the military commander and JAG, DOJ, or 

other organizations such as local law enforcement.

2. (U) To reinforce recently implemented practices to ensure timely 

and concurrent notification to the OIG of admissions of crimes 

related to child abuse and the expanded OIG role and 

responsibility, we recommend that: 

2A. (U) OIG finalize changes to its investigations manual and 

operating instruction to include incorporating the OIG role as 

the point of contact for child abuse crimes;

2B. (U) OS&CI update policies and operating procedures to 

identify the circumstances and processes for concurrent 

referral of admissions to OGC and OIG; and

2C. (U) OGC formalize in NRO guidance that the OIG is the point 

of contact for child abuse crimes and that written reports 

sent to DOJ should identify the OIG as the point of contact 

for child-related crimes.37

 37 (U) Following issuance of the report, we made an administrative change (numbering of 

recommendations) to align the order of the subparagraphs in recommendation 2 throughout the 

report. 
UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

Page 20 of 33

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

(U) APPENDIX A: LAWS AND GUIDANCE

(U) This appendix identifies and summarizes selected laws, executive orders, and other 

guidance that were in effect when the two admissions of potential crimes or UCMJ 

violations that are the focus of this report were made in May and June 2010. 

(U) Laws

• (U) Title 18 United States Code (U.S.C.) is the criminal and penal code of the 

Federal Government of the United States. It deals with Federal crimes and 

criminal procedure to include the reporting of child abuse by certain persons 

who, while engaged in a professional capacity or activity on Federal land or in a 

Federally operated (or contracted) facility learns of facts that give reason to 

suspect that a child has suffered an incident of child abuse. 

• (U) Title 28 U.S.C. § 535(b) requires that the head of a department or agency 

expeditiously report any information, allegation, or complaint received relating 

to violations of Title 18 involving government officers and employees to the 

Attorney General. Exceptions exist when (1) the responsibility to perform an 

investigation is otherwise assigned by another provision of law; or (2) the 

Attorney General directs otherwise with respect to a specified class of 

information, allegation, or complaint.

• (U) Title 42, Chapter 132, Subchapter IV—The Public Health and Welfare, Victims 

of Child Abuse Reporting Requirements, requires certain persons who engage in 

a professional capacity or activity on Federal land or in a Federally operated or 

contracted facility and learn of facts that give reason to suspect that a child has 

suffered an incident of child abuse make a report of the suspected abuse to the 

designated agency as soon as possible. Those professionals include law 

enforcement personnel. 42 U.S.C. § 13031(c)(1) (2006) further explains that the 

term ‘sexual abuse’ includes the employment, use, persuasion, inducement, 

enticement, or coercion of a child to engage in, or assist another person to 

engage in, sexually explicit conduct or the rape, molestation, prostitution, or 

other form of sexual exploitation of children, or incest with children.

• (U) The Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, requires the Inspector 

General to report expeditiously to the Attorney General whenever the Inspector 

General has reasonable grounds to believe there has been a violation of Federal 

criminal law.

• (U) Uniform Code of Military Justice, 64 Stat. 109, 10 U.S.C. Chapter 47, is the 

foundation of military law in the United States. The UCMJ applies to active 

duty and reserve military members of the United States Air Force, Army, Coast 

Guard, Marine Corps, and Navy. Cadets and midshipmen at the States military 
UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

Page 21 of 33

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

academies and retired members of the uniformed services who are entitled to 

retirement pay are also subject to the UCMJ. General Article 134 

(10 U.S.C. § 934, Article 134) states that military personnel are subject to the 

UCMJ jurisdiction for violations of state and Federal crimes that could 

prejudice the good order and discipline in the armed forces, bring discredit 

upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital.

(U) Executive Orders

• (U) Executive Order (E.O.) 12333, as amended, requires heads of IC elements to 

report possible violations of Federal criminal laws by employees, and of 

specified Federal criminal laws by any other person, to the Attorney General. 

Crimes are to be reported in compliance with procedures agreed upon by the 

Attorney General and the head of the department, agency, or establishment 

concerned and consistent with the protection of intelligence sources and 

methods. 

(U) Intelligence Community Guidance

• (U) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU): Reporting of Information Concerning 

Federal Crimes (1995) applies to all organizations and agencies within the 

Intelligence Community (IC). The MOU requires employees of an IC element to 

report to the GC or IG facts or circumstances that reasonably indicate that an 

employee has committed, is committing, or will commit a violation of Federal 

criminal law. The MOU requires IC elements to report information concerning 

possible Federal crimes by employees of an intelligence agency or organization 

or violations of specified Federal criminal laws by any other person, when the 

information is collected by the IC element during its performance of its 

designated intelligence activities as defined in E.O. 12333 §§ 1.8-1.13. The 

MOU also requires IC elements to develop internal procedures and establish 

initial and continuing training to ensure that its employees engaged in the 

review and analysis of collected intelligence are knowledgeable and in 

compliance with the MOU.

• (U//FOUO) Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) Between the Secretary of Defense 

and the Director of National Intelligence Concerning the National Reconnaissance 

Office (2010), identifies the NRO as a defense agency and an element of the IC. 
UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

Page 22 of 33

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

(U) DOD Guidance

• (U) DOD Regulation 5240-R.1, DOD Procedures Governing the Activities of 

DOD Intelligence Components that Affect United States Persons (December 1982), 

Chapter 12, applies to the provision of assistance by DOD intelligence 

components to law enforcement authorities. It authorizes cooperation with law 

enforcement authorities to investigate or prevent clandestine intelligence 

activities by foreign powers, international narcotics activities, or international 

terrorist activities; to protect DOD employees, information, property, and 

facilities; and to prevent detect, or investigate other violations of law. It also 

authorizes DOD intelligence components to provide to law enforcement 

incidentally acquired information reasonably believed to indicate a violation of 

Federal, state, local, or international law. 

• (U) DOD Instruction 5525.07, Implementation of the Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) Between the Departments of Justice (DOJ) and Defense 

Relating to the Investigation and Prosecution of Certain Crimes, (18 June 2007),

establishes policy for DOJ and DOD with regard to the investigation and 

prosecution of criminal matters over which the two Departments have 

jurisdiction. The MOU delineates when certain types of crimes will be 

investigated by DOJ or DOD. For example, crimes committed on a military 

installation will be investigated by the DOD investigative agency concerned and, 

when committed by a person subject to the UCMJ, prosecuted by the Military 

Department concerned. DOD provides immediate notice to DOJ of significant 

cases in which an individual subject and/or victim is not a military member or 

dependent. When a crime occurs on a military installation and there is 

reasonable basis to believe that it has been committed by a person or persons, 

some or all of whom are not subject to the UCMJ, the DOD investigative agency 

provides immediate notice of the matter to the appropriate DOJ investigative 

agency unless DOJ has relieved DOD of the reporting requirement for that type 

of class of crime.

• (U) Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM) 08-052—DOD Guidance for Reporting 

Questionable Intelligence Activities and Significant or Highly Sensitive Matters 

(17 June 2009), applies to Defense Agencies and all other organizational entities 

in the DOD. The DTM requires reporting to the Assistant to the Secretary of 

Defense for Intelligence Oversight (ATSD(IO)) of any intelligence activity that has 

been or will be reported to the AG, or that must be reported to the AG as 

required by law or other directive, including the 1995 MOU. 
UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

Page 23 of 33

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

(U) NRO Guidance

• (U) NRO Corporate Business Practice Instruction (CBPI 80-3) Obligation to Report 

Evidence of Possible Violations of Federal Criminal Law and Illegal Intelligence 

Activities (August 2009), established procedural guidance for NRO personnel to 

report any possible violations of Federal criminal law or illegal activities that 

relate to NRO funds, programs, property, operations or activities. Under the 

CBPI, the NRO OIG was responsible for reporting evidence of possible violations 

of Federal and criminal law to the DOJ, Defense Criminal Investigative Service, 

or other appropriate law enforcement agencies. The NRO OGC was responsible 

for immediately reporting allegations of evidence concerning possible violations 

of Federal criminal law not related to NRO funds, programs, property, 

operations, or activities. 
UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO 

 Page 24 of 33

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

(U) APPENDIX B: REPORTING TIMELINE — CONTRACTOR 

ADMISSION 

(U) This appendix describes the NRO’s actions to refer and report to DOJ a 

contractor’s admission of a potential crime. The contractor admitted to viewing child 

pornography on his personal computer located at his residence in 

 and molesting a child during a tutoring session at the child’s home in 

.

This table is UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO 

Date Action

27 April 2010 NRO approved access to classified NRO programs as part of 

the contractor’s employment on an NRO contract with 

.

23 June 2010 During a polygraph, the contractor made a voluntary 

admission that he molested a child in 2005 when he was a 

substitute teacher. He also admitted to viewing “cartoons” of 

child pornography in 2009 on a personal computer. 

28 June to 

6 July 2010

The NRO Office of Security and Counterintelligence (OS&CI) 

reviewed the polygraph examination as part of its quality 

assurance process. 

6 July 2010 Polygraph Management Branch (PMB) provided the polygraph 

examination report to the Adjudications Branch (AB) for an 

adjudicative decision regarding the contractor’s continued 

access to classified NRO program information.

12 July 2010 AB informally notified OGC of the admission and its intent to 

suspend the contractor’s access to classified information 

unless suspension of access would impede or prevent OGC 

from reporting the case to DOJ. OGC advised AB that 

suspension of access would not impact the ability of the NRO 

to refer the admission to DOJ. 

14 July 2010 NRO suspended the contractor’s clearance.

AB officially referred the admission to OS&CI’s Special Action 

Staff (SAS) for OGC referral.

21 July 2010 SAS referred the case to the NRO OGC. OGC delayed notifying 

DOJ of the admissions for one week because the NRO OGC 

official tasked with sending the report was out of the office.
UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO 

 Page 25 of 33

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

Date Action

26 July 2010 NRO debriefed the contractor from all classified programs at 

the NRO.

2 August 2010 OGC reported the admission of the potential violation of 

criminal law to DOJ and copied the NRO OIG on the 

notification letter. 

7 September 2010 In accordance with NRO process, the NRO OIG opened an 

investigation into the admission after receiving no response 

from DOJ indicating whether it planned to pursue the case 

within 10 days of the OGC notification to DOJ of the 

potential crime. 

23 November 2010 The NRO OIG referred the case to the FBI Innocent Images 

International Task Force. According to the NRO OIG records, 

the FBI Innocent Images International Task Force referred the 

matter to local law enforcement in where the 

potential crime of child molestation was reported to have 

occurred.

5 July 2012 Police Department requested 

information from the NRO following a call from a reporter. At 

the time of the admission, the contractor resided in 

.

10 July 2012 The McClatchy Company printed an article asserting that the 

NRO did not report admissions by its personnel of Federal 

crimes involving children.

7 September 2012 Police Department contacted the NRO 

OIG to request information about the case following a call from 

a reporter.

26 September 2012 NRO OIG provided information on the admission to the 

 Police Department.

(U) Source: IC IG analysis of NRO documents
UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

Page 26 of 33

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

(U) APPENDIX C: REPORTING TIMELINE — AIR FORCE OFFICER

ADMISSION

(U) This appendix describes the NRO’s actions to refer and report the admission of a 

potential crime and UCMJ violation made by an Air Force officer who admitted to 

viewing child pornography on his work computer, personal laptop, and home 

computer and being sexually attracted to his young daughters.

This table is UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO.

Date Action

13 March 2006 The Office of Personnel Management favorably adjudicated a 

background investigation for the Officer. The Air Force had 

granted the Officer a clearance. However, he was required to take 

and pass a polygraph examination to gain access to NRO systems 

as part of his assignment to the NRO. 

17 May 2010 During a NRO polygraph, the Officer voluntarily admitted that he 

(1) viewed child pornography on his office computer at the 

Pentagon, (2) viewed child pornography on home computers, and 

(3) was sexually attracted to children, including his young

daughters. He also admitted to inappropriately touching his 

young daughters.

Due to the seriousness of the admissions, the Polygraph 

Management Branch (PMB) notified the Adjudications Branch (AB) 

of the admission on the same day as the polygraph exam. 

19 May 2010 The NRO Office of Security and Counterintelligence (OS&CI) 

notified NRO leadership and Special Actions Staff (SAS) about the 

admission. 

20-24 May 2010 OS&CI conducted a quality assurance review of the polygraph 

examination report, test results, and charts. 

25 May 2010 Final polygraph exam report referred to AB. 

27 May 2010 AB referred the admission to SAS for its determination on whether 

to refer the admission to OGC.

28 May 2010 SAS referred the admission to OGC. 

2 June 2010 Based on NRO OGC advice, OS&CI forwarded the case to the Air 

Force Central Adjudications Facility for adjudication with OGC’s

understanding that it would be investigated.
UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO 

 Page 27 of 33

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

Date Action

5 July 2012 DOD notified the NRO that the Officer retired from the Air Force. 

As a private citizen, he began working on a Department of Army 

contract that required a clearance for Sensitive Compartmented 

Information. 

 Police Department requested information 

from the NRO following a call from a reporter.

6 July 2012 NRO OGC notified DOJ of the change in the affiliation of the now 

retired Officer and the new contract on which he was working.

10 July 2012 The McClatchy Company printed an article asserting that the NRO 

did not report admissions by its personnel of Federal crimes 

involving children.

24 July 2012 The FBI informally contacted NRO OGC requesting the name of 

individuals cited in the McClatchy Company article.

25 July 2012 DOJ sent a formal request for the identifying information of those 

individuals referenced in the McClatchy Company article to the 

NRO OGC. 

NRO OGC notified NRO OIG. As of July 2012 the NRO designated 

the OIG as the official point of contact for admissions involving 

child crimes.

27 July 2012 NRO OIG opened a case on the retired Officer and provided a 

summary of the admission to the FBI and 

Police Department.

28 August 2012 NRO OIG coordinated with a special agent from the Pentagon 

Force Protection Agency. 

29 August 2012 NRO OIG provided the file summary and timeline to the Pentagon 

Force Protection Agency regarding OS&CI processing.

(U) Source: IC IG Analysis of NRO documents
UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO 

 Page 28 of 33

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

(U) APPENDIX D: ABBREVIATIONS

(U) AB Adjudications Branch

(U) AFCAF Air Force Central Adjudications Facility

(U) AFOSI Air Force Office of Special Investigations

(U) AG Attorney General

(U) 

(U) C.A.A.F. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces 

(U) CID Counterintelligence Division

(U) DCIO Defense Criminal Investigative Organization

(U) DOD Department of Defense

(U) DODCAF Department of Defense Central Adjudications Facility

(U) DOJ Department of Justice

(U) FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

(U) FY Fiscal Year

(U) IC IG Inspector General of the Intelligence Community

(U) JAG Judge Advocate General

(U) M.J. Military Justice Reporter

(U) MOU Memorandum of Understanding

(U) NRO National Reconnaissance Office

(U) OS&CI Office of Security and Counterintelligence

(U) OGC Office of General Counsel

(U) OIG Office of Inspector General

(U) PSD Personnel Security Division

(U) SAS Special Actions Staff

(U) UCMJ Uniform Code of Military Justice

(U) U.S.C. United States Code
UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

Page 29 of 33

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

(U) APPENDIX E: MANAGEMENT COMMENTS
UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

Page 30 of 33

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO
UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO 

 Page 31 of 33

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO
UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO 

 Page 32 of 33

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO
UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO 

 Page 33 of 33

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO