A
review by the Associated Press has found that the Office of the Inspector
General at the Department of Defense “hardly ever” agrees with whistleblowers
who claim they are retaliated against for exposing wrongdoing. The office sided
with the military in over 90 percent of 3,000 cases since 2002. From the AP:
The inspector general’s
office rejected claims of retaliation and stood by the military in more than 90
percent of nearly 3,000 cases during the past six years. More than 73 percent
were closed after only a preliminary review that relied on available documents
and sources — often from the military itself — to determine whether a full
inquiry was warranted.
The
article does a good job in shortly covering the “official” reason for why this
happens, but then gets to the heart of the matter:
The high rejection rates
suggest scores of complaints aren’t valid, that many whistleblowers are whiners
who are prone to exaggeration. But critics, including a Republican senator,
wonder whether many valid cases are dismissed before being carefully examined
because of attitudes in the inspector general’s office.
Also…
Whistleblowing is risky
business, particularly for those in uniform. They have fewer rights than their
civilian counterparts and work in a culture where questioning leadership is
frowned upon. Demotions, poor performance reports and letters of reprimand are
commonly used to penalize or silence whistleblowers. Any one of these can
derail even a promising career.
The
article then talks about the story of Navy officer Jason Hudson, who was retaliated
against for exposing a recruiting policy that favored white candidates. The IG,
despite the rescinding of the policy, and evidence of retaliation, has done
nothing to help him.
--
Dylan Blaylock