2.Federal Whistleblower Franz J. Gayl Disclosure Letter, WRI Investigator John Hickey, dtd 11 December 2021
11 December 2021
Franz J. Gayl
U.S. Department of Defense -Office of Inspector General 4800 Mark Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22350-1500
Attn: Supervisory WRI Investigator John Hickey
John.hickey@dodoig.mil 1-703-604-8613
SUBJECT: DISCLOSURE OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE MISCONDUCT [18 USC
§1505] OCCURING WITHIN THE OFFICE OF DOD IG ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATIONS DESIGNED TO MASK SENIOR DOD CIVILIAN/GENERAL OFFICER MISCONDUCT
WRI Supervisory Investigator John Hickey,
In the letter from Ms. Nilgun Tolek, Director DoD IG Whistleblower Reprisal Investigation Directorate (WRI), she stated I contact you directly in your capacity as WRI Supervisory Investigator over concerns on Whistleblower Reprisal Investigation (WRI) [20210728-072367- CASE-02] conducted by WRI Investigator Derrick M. Jackson into whistleblower complaint: “Reprisal actions taken against Franz J. Gayl for exercise of 1st Amendment Right to Free Speech & disclosure of Substantial Danger to Public Health or Safety” [5 USC
§2302(a)(2)(D)(ii)/5a IG Act §7(A)], see enclosure (A) WRI Report of Investigation (20210728- 072367) & (B) DoD Hotline-WRI Senior Civilian/General Officer Reprisal Complaint (20210728-072367-CASE-02).
The WRI investigation (20210728-072367-CASE-02), conducted on behalf of Patrick W. Gookin, Director DoD IG Hotline1 was required by statute to be conducted under CIGIE Quality Standards for Investigation (QSI)2; vetted by the WRI Supervisory Investigator, and approved by the Director WRI Directorate Ms. Tolek.
WRI investigation (20210728-072367-CASE-02), has fatal investigative deficiency that directly contradicts investigative findings & investigative determination; as well as calls into question investigative integrity, efficiency, and independence required by members of the Inspector General Community charged with protecting the economy, efficiency, and integrity of the Federal government.
The following statutory concerns are identified & aligned to the CIGIE Quality Standards for Investigation (QSI) for ease of response:
a. CHARACTER: Investigators must possess & maintain the highest standards of ethics, including unimpeachable honesty & integrity?
Q (1): Did you inform Ms. Tolek that you inserted yourself into an ongoing WRI Investigation, assigned to WRI Investigator Derrick M. Jackson, after the federal whistleblower reasonably requested information on the conduct of the investigation from the assigned WRI Investigator Derrick M. Jackson, see enclosure (C)?
Q (2): Did you inform Ms. Tolek that you elected to insert yourself into an ongoing WRI Investigation on 08 July 2021 intimidating a federal whistleblower by claiming, “I only answer questions via telephone and do not respond in writing” inappropriately usurping the authority of the assigned WRI Investigator Derrick M. Jackson, who following your example, also refused to respond to legitimate questions concerning ongoing WRI investigative process, see enclosure (D)?
b. INDEPENDENCE (PERSONAL): Impairments include personal & financial relationships, preconceived biases, or prior experience with the investigated?
Q (1): Did you inform Ms. Tolek that you were the “Acting” Director, Civilian Reprisal Investigations & point of contact (POC) for investigation: CRI-HL113196 Appropriated Fund Employee Whistleblower Reprisal Investigation dtd 09 November 2010." While fully aware of the fact that the federal whistleblower was Franz J. Gayl, see enclosure (E)?
c. INDEPENDENCE (EXTERNAL): Interference in exercise of investigative responsibility, authority to overrule or influence investigations, denial of records?
Q (1): Did you as WRI Supervisory Investigator approve the WRI Investigative finding, “This information indicated that without the approval of, or notification to HQMC officials, you posted multiple articles in the global times.” When the federal whistleblower provided to the WRI Investigator Derrick M. Jackson evidence directly contrary to the WRI Investigative finding, see enclosure (F)?
Q (2): Did you as the WRI Supervisory Investigator approve the WRI Investigative finding, “Your failure to report contact with a foreign government-controlled entity constitutes a violation of SecEA Directive 3 and DoDM 5105.21 . . .” When the federal whistleblower provided to the WRI Investigator Derrick M. Jackson evidence directly contrary to the WRI Investigative finding, see enclosure (G)
d. INDEPENDENCE (LEGAL): Investigations conducted in accordance with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations & with respect to privacy?
Q (1): Did you in your capacity as the WRI Supervisory Investigator inform Ms. Tolek of the fact that you had violated 18 USC §1346- artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest service3; in addition to, exercising arbitrary and capricious exercise of power by a federal official that adversely affected the rights of a federal whistleblower [5 USC §2302(D)(ii)]- Abuse of Authority? 4,5,6
e. INDEPENDENCE (ETHICS): Investigations will conform with standards of ethical conduct for executive branch employees [5 CFR §2635.101(b)(1-14)?
Q (1): Did you inform Ms. Tolek that you refused to allow WRI Investigator Derrick M. Jackson to conduct a legitimate whistleblower reprisal investigation under existing IG Act statutory authorities [5a IG Act §7(A)] & falsely claim in the WRI Report of Investigation (20210728-072367-CASE-02), directed by Patrick
W. Gookin, Director DoD IG Hotline (20210728-072367) that the federal whistleblower filed a senior leader (Civilian/General Officer) reprisal complaint under Presidential Policy Directive 19 when in fact he filed under IG Act §7(A)7?
Q (2): Did you inform Ms. Tolek that the WRI Report of Investigation ((20210728- 072367-CASE-02) did not “alleged that U.S. Marine Corps officials initiated a counterintelligence investigation and removed your access to classified information in reprisal for making protected disclosures” but instead, the federal whistleblower disclosed, reprisal actions taken against a federal whistleblower for exercise of 1st Amendment Right to Free Speech & disclosure of Substantial Danger to Public Health or Safety [5 USC §2302(a)(2)(D)(ii)/5a IG Act §7(A)].
f. DUE PROFESSIONAL CARE (DOCUMENTATION): Investigative report findings must be supported by adequate evidentiary base (witness statements & documentation)?
Q (1): Did you inform Ms. Tolek that the WRI Report of Investigation (20210728- 072367-CASE-02) did not contain witness statements & documentation justifying investigative findings and investigative determination?
g. QUALITATIVE STANDARDS (INFORMATION MANAGEMENT (DCATS): All investigative data will be stored in the Defense Case Administrative Tracking System (D-CATS) for case record retrieval?
Q (1): Did you inform Ms. Tolek that WRI Report of Investigation (20210728- 072367-CASE-02) did not contain all applicable information?
h. RECUSALS: All investigative personnel must record recusal (intake, case handling, and investigation) within the Defense Case Administrative Tracking System (D-CATS) record?
Q (1): Did WRI Supervisory Investigator John Hickey properly recuse himself from WRI Investigation (20210728-072367-CASE-02) & properly register information in D-CATS; as well as, notify: COL Marguerite C. Garrison USA(Ret.), Deputy Inspector General Administrative Investigations (DIG-AI); Patrick W. Gookin, Director DoD IG Hotline; Anthony D. Jones, Investigations of Senior Officials (202110628-000024); Nilgun Tolek, Director DoD IG Whistleblower Reprisal Investigation Directorate (WRI); and WRI Investigator Derrick M. Jackson, see enclosure (E)?
2. The intentional employment of deceptive practices (investigative misconduct) aimed at frustrating or impeding legitimate function of government departments or agencies is clearly prohibited by criminal statute & threatens both the operation and integrity of the government: 8,9
(a). There must be investigation (criminal)10 to determine accountability for creation of a false official statement (findings/determination) produced in
3. I look forward to your immediate written response to each of the aforementioned investigative misconduct disclsoures as instructed by Ms. Nilgun Tolek and urge you to make immediate notification, via the DoD IG chain of command, to DoD IG “Acting” Principal Deputy Inspector General COL Steven A. Stebbins USA(Ret.) so he can properly report loss of investigative independence to the Secretary of Defense [5a IG Act §2(3)/5a IG Act §4(d)]; as well as, properly notify Congress concerning serious internal IG investigative misconduct (loss of investigative independence) as required under [5a IG Act §4(d)].
Very Respectfully,
Franz J. Gayl
Do I have your permission to include your comments in my letter to Senator Murray?
Dr. Whitman, Sir, I am dealing with something I have seen in my past. Federal agents who are completely in bed with corporate entities and who shut down legitimate wrongful termination complaints. An investigator in the Tampa office Luke Scully had my employer on the line during an alleged neutral interview as going as far as to tell me how he was going to rule against me, during the interview. I immediately asked for his supervisor a Jason Brush called me and when I told him I wanted to speak to his supervisor because Scully had tainted all the investigation. Brush summarily tried to shut down my complaint without my expressed written consent.
Then I filed a complaint with DOL OIG who said they didn't investigate these things and kicked it to OSHA management.
I finally just left a message for a Lilly Colon the assistant regional administrator for region 4.
I wonder what will happen, Dr.?