Various statutes, regulations, and presidential policy protect different groups of DOD civilians and contractors from acts of reprisal for whistleblowing. Specifically, these groups comprise (1) DOD appropriated-fund employees, (2) DOD NAFI employees, (3) DOD contractor, subcontractor, grantee, and subgrantee employees, and (4) DCIPS employees of the defense intelligence community and any employee with eligibility for access to classified information. Table 1 summarizes the statutory and policy authorities covering each employee group, along with selected protected disclosures and prohibited personnel actions—which are two required elements of the test for determining whether there was reprisal against a complainant for whistleblowing. A protected disclosure is a disclosure of wrongdoing by a whistleblower to a party that is an eligible recipient of that disclosure, while prohibited personnel actions are those actions that are taken or threatened in response to a protected disclosure, such as termination, reassignment, or a significant change in duties, responsibilities, or working conditions. DODIG, the Office of Special Counsel, and the IGs of the defense intelligence components have responsibility for investigating whistleblower reprisal complaints brought by DOD civilian, contractor, subcontractor, grantee, and subgrantee employees. Among other matters, DODIG is responsible for investigating and overseeing component IG investigations of complaints alleging reprisal against certain DOD civilian employees and for conducting investigations of complaints alleging reprisal against DOD contractor, subcontractor, grantee, and subgrantee employees. Specifically: Civilian NAFI employees—DODIG is to investigate all reprisal complaints from these employees under 10 U.S.C. § 1587. DOD Directive 1401.03 requires that DODIG submit investigation reports involving NAFI employees to the Director of Administration and Management, who has responsibility for final adjudication and the direction of corrective action. DOD contractor, subcontractor, grantee and subgrantee employees— DODIG is responsible for investigating all complaints of reprisal under 10 U.S.C. § 2409. Civilian appropriated-fund employees—DODIG may investigate, on a discretionary basis, reprisal complaints from these employees that are of particular interest to DODIG under the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. DODIG typically retains for investigation those appropriated-fund civilian cases received through the DODIG hotline that involve retaliation for making a sexual-assault complaint, misconduct by senior DOD officials, and other high-profile issues that may be of interest to DODIG. While DODIG may exercise its discretionary authority to investigate appropriated-fund cases it receives, the Office of Special Counsel has primary jurisdiction to investigate the majority of civilian whistleblower reprisal cases across the federal government, including those involving DOD appropriated- fund civilians. The Office of Special Counsel has the authority to seek corrective actions, including through mediation with employing agencies. DCIPS employees and any employees with eligibility for access to classified information—DODIG is to conduct investigations of reprisal involving these employees and oversee the investigation of such complaints by the defense intelligence components under PPD-19 Part A and Directive-Type Memorandum 13-008, DOD’s implementing guidance. The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence issued Directive-Type Memorandum 13-008 to establish DOD policy, assign responsibilities, and provide procedures for the implementation of PPD-19 by the DOD components, which include the defense intelligence components and their IGs. Under PPD-19 Part B, DODIG is to investigate reprisal allegations involving actions affecting eligibility for access to classified information. Under the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 and the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, the defense intelligence component IGs—the IGs of the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, and the National Security Agency—have independent statutory authority to conduct investigations of reprisal complaints brought by DCIPS employees. DOD Directive-Type Memorandum 13-008, which implements PPD-19 within DOD, requires the defense intelligence component IGs to notify DODIG of whistleblower reprisal allegations they receive, and grants DODIG the authority to retain such cases for investigation or refer them back to the component IG, in which case DODIG conducts oversight of the investigation. Upon receipt of a whistleblower reprisal complaint from a DOD civilian, contractor, subcontractor, grantee, or subgrantee employee, DODIG follows a standard intake process to analyze the complaint for a prima facie allegation. According to DODIG’s AI Investigations Manual, the elements of prima facie generally consist of: (1) whether a protected whistleblowing disclosure was made, (2) whether the alleged reprisal action followed the disclosure, (3) whether the subjects alleged to have taken the alleged reprisal action could reasonably have had knowledge of the protected disclosure, and (4) whether the alleged facts support an inference of reprisal. If the complaint is retained by DODIG for investigation, DODIG employs a standard investigative process. Figure 1 provides a summary of DODIG’s intake and investigation process from complaint receipt through case closure. CIGIE’s Quality Standards for Federal Offices of Inspector General and Quality Standards for Investigations collectively provide a set of overarching principles that IGs should adhere to in conducting their operations, including whistleblower reprisal investigations. Specifically, CIGIE’s Quality Standards for Federal Offices of Inspector General sets forth the overall quality framework for managing, operating, and conducting the work of IGs by providing guidance on ethics, independence, confidentiality, internal control, quality assurance, and professional standards, among other things. CIGIE’s Quality Standards for Investigations provides a framework for conducting high-quality investigations through general and qualitative investigative standards. General standards, among other things, address the qualifications of investigators, independence, and the concept of due professional care. Qualitative standards focus on investigative planning, execution, reporting, and information management. DODIG generally did not meet statutory and internal timeliness goals for conducting and overseeing DOD civilian and contractor reprisal cases from fiscal years 2013 through 2015, but improved its timeliness for some categories of cases, as well as its intake process and oversight reviews. As a result of our review, DODIG implemented a process to ensure that information is updated in its case-management system so that it can accurately determine the total length of NAFI civilian reprisal cases. Further, DODIG has taken and plans to take additional steps to improve the timeliness of conducting and overseeing investigations but has not assessed the feasibility of collecting key workload data that would enable it to more fully assess its personnel requirements and has not reported regularly to Congress on the timeliness of civilian and contractor reprisal investigations. DODIG generally did not meet its statutory and internal timeliness goals for the DOD civilian and contractor whistleblower reprisal investigations that it closed in fiscal years 2013 through 2015, but improved timeliness for some categories of cases, as well as its intake process and oversight reviews during that time. Table 2 shows the statutory and internal timeliness goals for DODIG civilian and contractor employee reprisal investigations, intake reviews, and oversight reviews. Our review found that DODIG received 1,208 civilian and contractor complaints from fiscal year 2013 through fiscal year 2015 and closed 1,155 cases by declining (i.e., declining to investigate), dismissing, or investigating complaints. Of the 1,155 cases DODIG closed, 103 were fully investigated. Overall, DODIG did not meet statutory or internal timeliness goals in about 83 percent of the investigations it closed in fiscal years 2013 and 2014, and about 84 percent of the investigations it closed in fiscal year 2015. However, the average length of all closed investigations improved by about 20 percent (99 days), decreasing from 505 days in fiscal year 2013 to 406 days in fiscal year 2015. Further, the aggregate median case length of investigations decreased by about 34 percent (170 days), from 503 days in fiscal year 2013 to 333 days in fiscal year 2015. Figure 2 shows the average and median case length by employee group across each fiscal year, as well as the range of these cases and the percentage of cases meeting the timeliness target. Our review found that DODIG’s timeliness in conducting intake reviews and oversight reviews also improved across the 3 fiscal years, although DODIG did not always meet timeliness goals. Specifically, DODIG’s average time for conducting intake reviews improved from 62 days in fiscal year 2013 to 49 days in fiscal years 2014 and 2015, a decrease of about 22 percent. DODIG met its timeliness goal in 50 percent of intake reviews in fiscal year 2013, 42 percent in fiscal year 2014, and 37 percent in fiscal year 2015. The time that DODIG took to conduct oversight reviews of investigations conducted by the defense intelligence components similarly decreased, from an average of 32 days in fiscal year 2013 to 24 days in fiscal year 2015, a decrease of 25 percent. DODIG met its 60-day timeliness goal in two of three such oversight reviews in fiscal year 2013 and all four reviews in fiscal year 2015. DODIG did not close any oversight reviews of investigations conducted by the defense intelligence components in fiscal year 2014. Appendix II provides information on the general characteristics of DOD civilian and contractor whistleblower reprisal cases.