WHISTLEBLDWER Report government lawbreoking. Without breaking the law. Monday, October 30, 2017 HAND DELIVERED The Honorable Richard Burr Chair, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence The Honorable Mark Warner Vice Chair, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 1211 Hart Senate Office Building United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Agency Dear Chairman Burr and Vice Chairman Warner, The nonprofit legal organization Whistleblower Aid represents Jonathan H. Kaplan. From 2005 201 5, Mr. Kaplan served as a Special Agent and Investigator with the Central Intelligence Agency?s Office of Inspector General Mr. Kaplan was part of operation Top Gun, which resulted in the successful prosecution of US. Congressman Duke Cunningham for bribery, fraud, and tax evasion. During his government service, Mr. Kaplan received a Certificate for Special Achievement and fourteen Exceptional Performance Awards. In 2009, Mr. Kaplan won the Intelligence Community Inspector General?s Investigation Award [Exhibit for his role in the investigation and prosecution of CIA Executive Director Kyle Foggo?the highest-ranking CIA of?cer ever indicted?for fraud against the United States. Director of Central Intelligence Leon E. Panetta personally congratulated Mr. Kaplan on his ?outstanding achievement.? [Exhibit Mr. Kaplan is concerned that Christopher Sharpley has been dishonest with this Committee about Mr. Sharpley?s personal knowledge of multiple whistleblowcr reprisal investigations in which Mr. Sharpley is named. WHISTLEBLUWER Report government lowbreoinng. Without breaking the low. In his nomination hearing on October 17, 201?, Mr. Sharpley made false statements under oath. Mr. Sharpley testi?ed several times that he was unaware of any active whistleblower reprisal investigations against him: ?Senator [Feinstein], I?m unaware of any open investigations on me.? (Christopher R. Sharpley, 0:54:32) (emphasis added). To Senator Harris: am unaware of any ongoing investigations? (Christopher R. Sharpley. 1:32:40) (emphasis added). Mr. Sharpley did not limit his denials merely to active reprisal claims. He went further. suggesting to the Committee that he does not know of any reprisal complaints ?led against him. presumably including prior claims: To Senator Feinstein: ?I?m unaware of the details of?w complaints about me. I can't speak to Specifics because I donit know about them.? (Christopher R. Sharpley, 0:54:35) (emphasis added). To Senator Harris: ?I?m unaware of . .. the details of (Christopher R. Sharpley. 1:32:40) (emphasis added). Not only is Mr. Sharpley currently named in multiple open, ongoing investigations for whistleblower retaliation, but at the time he gave his sworn testimony, Mr. Sharpley was well aware of these and multiple earlier investigations. Mr. Sharpley took his denials a step further, claiming under oath that no one during his entire career had ever acted against his misconduct: [To Senator Harris] ?No action or conclusions of wrongdoing have been made about my career or anything that I?ve done.? (Christopher R. Sharpley, 32:47) Mr. Sharpley knew when he testified that multiple CIA 01G staff. over a period of years, have taken action to challenge and remedy Mr. Sharpley?s wrongdoing. Our client Mr. Kaplan, a federal investigator who served with distinction for many years, believes on the basis of personal knowledge that there is probable cause to initiate a criminal 1AV?ii?biE at, WHISTLEBLDWER Report government Iowbreaking. Without breaking the low. investigation of Christopher R. Sharpley for perjury to Congress.3 The evidence supporting Mr. Kaplan?s belief is described below. 11. Summary of misconduct within CIA OIG under Mr. Sharpley?s The Committee should be aware of the full scope of accusations and investigations against Mr. Sharpley and the DIG under his leadership. ?rst as Deputy IG. and more recently Acting 1G. These include: (1) Evidence tampering in the ?Faber? case: In 2013?14. while Mr. Sharpley was serving as Deputy 1G, staff from the CIA OIG fabricated incriminating evidence and withheld exculpatory material in order to obtain a fraudulent conviction in a criminal case prosecuted by the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. The underlying CIA DIG investigation, called ?Faber,? arose out of a False Claims Act civil lawsuit in which American Systems Corp, Anixter International Inc., and Corning Cable Systems LLC ultimately settled for $3 million paid to the U.S. government [See Exhibit Because the name of the individual defendant in the improper criminal prosecution may still be classi?ed by the CIA, Mr. Kaplan refuses to provide the name in this letter. When several DIG staff discovered this misconduct, they secretly went around 010? leadership (including Mr. Sharpley), and contacted the U.S. Attorney?s office directly with their concerns. In that particular case, the defendant?s guilty plea had already been accepted by Judge James C. Cacheris, and had to be voided at the request of the U.S. Attorney after learning about the falsi?ed evidence. All the case proceedings were then sealed by the court. Multiple sources have since told Whistleblower Aid that the U.S. Attorney?s office for the Eastern District of Virginia was furious, and announced an informal policy of declining new criminal referrals from CIA OIG. n' Several whistleblowers within CIA DIG reported evidence tampering in the ?Faber? case to the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Unfortunately, they still have not received a positive resolution. Under the leadership of Mr. Sharpley and Mr. Buckley, no one within CIA 010 was prosecuted or even disciplined for this criminal activity.3 Under Mr. Sharpley?s leadership as Deputy IG, and in violation of U.S. law and policy, CIA DIG staff were speci?cally instructed never to speak to ICIG investigators without prior permission and monitoring from CIA OIG 23cc 18 162] (201?) (criminalizing the act of perjury). 31&3 U.S.C. 1505, 1519 (2017) {criminalizing obstruction ofjustice and falsi?cation, fabrication, or destruction of evidence). WHISTLEBLDWER Report government lowbreaktng. Without breaking the tow. leadership. During an ensuing investigation on evidence tampering conducted by the Fair Housing Finance Agency 016 (chosen as an external and presumably. objective, agency), Mr. Sharpley improperly interrupted witness interviews, walking in special designated conference rooms to learn the names of the whistleblowers within his staff who had reported the ?Faber? evidence tampering to external oversight bodies. (3) A pattern of reprisals: Mr. Sharpley successfully identified some (but not all) of the CIA OIG whistleblowers involved in reporting the office?s misconduct to ICIG, HPSCI and SSCI. (Some of the whistleblowers remain employed at CIA OIG and do not wish to have their identities revealed.) Mr. Sharpley and other senior CIA OIG officials retaliated against the whistleblowers he was able to identify in various ways including forced administrative leave, adverse security clearance actions, and other forms of harassment. Our client, Jonathan Kaplan, is only one example. Mr. Kaplan had been an initial investigator on the ?Faber? case. In August 2014. Mr. Kaplan met with HPSCI staff to discuss misconduct by Mr. Sharpley and CIA 01G leadership in the ?Faber? case and other related matters. Shortly before Mr. Kaplan?s meeting with HPSCI, he accessed a CIA OIG computer system to refresh his memory on the details of the ?Faber? case. Then on November 24, 2014, his supervisor Kim McManus?a CIA OIG staffer involved in the improper ?Faber? prosecution?issued Mr. Kaplan a formal ?Letter of Warning? and placed it in his security file. The McManus LOW states: ?on 6 August 2014 you searched on ?Faber,? the last name of a subject previously investigated by I am issuing this Letter of Warning because you violated OIG policy? [by searching the computer system]. [See Exhibit D, Letter of Warningfrom Kim MeMonas to Jonathan Kapian, November 24, 20 4] The McManus LOW, issued while Mr. Sharpley was the Deputy IG, ultimately prevented Mr. Kaplan from renewing his security clearance, and effectively ended his long and distinguished career in government service. Mr. Kaplan believes the McManus LOW was intended by OIG leadership to signal to other prospective whistleblowers that they should stay quiet. Several other whistleblowers suffered serious, career-ending reprisals by Christopher Sharpley and other senior CIA DIG leadership. Ms. McManus was ultimately given a favorable transfer out of CIA 010 to a new government position. The irony that such malfeasance should occur within the Of?ce of Inspector General? created by Congress to be the agency watchdog and to protect CIA whistleblowers?should be lost on no one. WHISTLEBLEIWEH Report government fervor-coking. Without breaking the iow. The misconduct described here was part of a larger pattern of incompetence. bullying, and harassment within CIA OIG under Mr. Sharpley?s leadership. During this period the Of?ce of Inspector General turned away from complex investigations of overseas CIA covert operations towards easier-to-prove fraud and bribery claims against low-level domestic contractors and vendors. As an example. CIA OIG never conducted any investigation at all into the 20 I 2 Benghazi attacks. or any evaluation of why Ambassador Stevens and two CIA operators were killed during agency operations in Libya. Instead. the security office was permitted to conduct its own review of itself and its staff. Staff tumover accelerated tremendously under Mr. Sharpley?s leadership. and the total number of active investigations (as measured by semi-annual reports to Congressional oversight committees) dropped precipitously. Mr. Sharpley was also involved in the decision to move CIA 01G offices away from the main CIA complex at Langley, to the Dulles Discovery site. a blow to relevance within the agency. Several CIA OIG staff ?led complaints of harassment and discrimination during Mr. Sharpley?s tenure. Our client Mr. Kaplan?and other whistleblowers whose identities are not yet public?followed all the rules and procedures designated by the government. For years, Mr. Kaplan and others have pursued complaints through various supposedly-independent oversight bodies. including the Intelligence Community Inspector General. the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. and the U.S. Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Ef?ciency Mr. Kaplan also ?led multiple complaints with the U.S. Equal Opportunity in Employment Commission.4 We are aware of no allegations that Mr. Kaplan or any of the other whistleblowers suffering Mr. Sharpley?s retaliation have ever improperly disclosed classi?ed information to someone not authorized to receive it. But the system of US. intelligence oversight has failed Mr. Kaplan and others. Despite reports of misconduct from numerous sources within CIA OIG over several years. apparently none of the relevant oversight bodies have taken any remedial action against Mr. Sharpley or other current and former CIA OIG leadership who are responsible. Instead. Mr. Sharpley has been nominated by the President to serve as Inspector General of the CIA. and the Senate is now actively considering his nomination. Ill. Evidence of paring: by Christopher R. Sharpley Mr. Kaplan believes that the following provides probable cause to investigate Christopher R. Sharpley for perjury to Congress: 4 The complete EEO ?lings. which run to thousands of pages, can be provided upon request. 5 WHISTLEBLDWER @1110 Report government iowbreaking. Without breaking the iuw. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Case 15-06: Christopher Sharpley was named as a perpetrator in EEO case 15-06, in which Mr. Kaplan alleged reprisal for communicating directly with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence about the ?Faber? evidence-tampering case. As a proposed remedy, Mr. Kaplan?s complaint requested that Christopher Sharpley be required to attend a training class on the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act. Mr. Sharpley was ?Af?ant E- 4? in EEG case 15-06. (Note the documents in this case were originally classi?ed, but were declassi?ed on February 22, 2016.) On September 16, 2016, Mr. Sharpley signed a sworn af?davit [Exhibit that reads in part as follows: 0 ChristOpher R. Sharpley, do hereby solemnly af?rm under penalty of perjury that the information I am about to give is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.? 0 ?1 have been advised that the Of?ce of Equal Employment Opportunity. Central Intelligence Agency, Washington DC. is investigating a complaint of employment discrimination ?led by Jonathan Kaplan. 0 understand that the investigation will address the following issues: reprise! for participating in EEO when On 24 November 2014, Kim issued ompiainant a Letter of Warning (LOW) for vioiating the Q??ice?s policy concerning accessing andr searching information. (emphasis added.) 0 In response to a question ?Have you ever been accused of harassment or retaliation for protected EEO activity previously?", Mr. Sharpley answered: ?Yes" but denied all allegations. In 2016, the EEO closed case 15-06 with no ?ndings on the merits, arguably consistent with Mr. Sharpley?s denials of any knowledge about ?open? investigations. 0 But in his sworn Congressional testimony, Mr. Sharpley went even further, denying knowledge of ?any? complaints in which he is named. Mr. Sharpley misled the committee about the history of reprisa] accusations against him. ?Ongoing? ?Open" Reprisal Complaint with ICIG: On December 2, 2014, while Mr. Sharpley was Deputy 1G and about one month before Sharpley became Acting IG, WHISTLEBLUWEH Report government lowbreoking. Without breaking the law. Mr. Kaplan submitted a formal complaint of reprisal to the Investigations Division of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community [Exhibit The complaint reads: 0 ?By this letter I wish to formally file a complaint of Whistleblower Reprisal and report a violation of the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) by the Central Intelligence Agency?s Of?ce of Inspector General.? 0 ?On 24 November 2014 McManus stated that I was being issued a Letter of Warning (LOW) for violating the Office?s policy concerning accessing and searching [the computer systems].? C3 ?The ?rst search presumably occurred on 6 August 2014, and revealed that the keyword ?Faber? was associated with this search.? (emphasis added) 0 ??The [??Faber"] search I am accused of conducting was associated with my meeting with HPSCI Sta?ers and the document I provided Congress had resided on an 010 owned file server and I had vetted its release through the Agency?s O?ice of CongressionalA?airs.? [emphasis added] 0 "In or about February 2013, I wrote a Letter of Urgent Concern to the [Congressional] oversight committees in which I raised potential criminal conduct by David B. Buckley and his subordinates. In the summer 012013, I was interviewed by Staffers from both oversight committees.? 0 ?In or about May 2014, I wrote a second Letter of Urgent Concern to the committees regarding irregular personnel actions and potential reprisal against two of my colleagues that had made protected communications.?5 0 ?In or about June 2014, I met with Deputy Counsel for and reported potential investigative misconduct by ClA?s DIG. In earlyAngast 2014, I met with Sta?ers from the House Permanent Select Committeefor Intelligence and provided information of potential withholding of material evidence in the ?Faber? [emphasis added] 0 Mr. Kaplan?s December 2, 2014 reprisal complaint to ICIG against Mr. Sharpley and other CIA OIG leadership remain; active and gpen. Mr. Kaplan has reason to believe 5 Mr. Kaplan is referring to two other whistleblowers involved in the ?Faber" case whose identities are not yet public. Their associated reprisal complaint(s} against Mr, Sharpley remain active, but are beyond the scope ofthis letter. WHISTLEBLUWER Report government Without breaking the law thal Mr. Sharpley was informed about the complaint and possibly even responded to a request for evidence from the lClG. However. to protect sources' Mr. Kaplan declines Io state the factual basis for his beliefin this letler. Mr. Kaplan is willing to provide additional evidence to federal criminal investigators in a secure envimnment. Whistlehlower Aid is aware of other individuals with open reprisal claims against Mr. Sharpleyr One ofthem. Andrew Bakaj, is also our client. Mr. Eakaj submitted a letter to Congress on October 23' 2017 outlining his related concerns with Mr. Sharpley's nomination. That letter contains further evidence that Mr. Sharpley was fully aware ofthe active investigations against him at the time of his testimony. Our clients Mr. Kaplan and Mr. Bakaj. and WhistlebluwerAid legal partner Mark 5. ma. are interested in meeting with you or your staffal your earliest convenience to discuss these matters. We suggest secure communications with Signal phone app, on-- XL ichn Napier Tye. Esq. Executive Director. Whistleblower Aid Sincerely. Enclosures Exhibit A: Award for Jonathan Kaplan, December 1, 2009 Exhibit B: Let/er 0/ from DCI Leon Panetta to Jonalhan Kapian. December 17,2009 Exhibit c: CIA ('lmlruclars Haulers. Blue Man Group Kickback Cara. Post. March 20 i 3 Exhibit D: Lell'er of Warning fi'um Kim McManus in Janalhurl Kaplan, November 24, 2014 Exhibit E: Sworn Aflia'uvil Sharplay, EEO Case 15-06, Affiant 13-4. 16 September 20 i 5 Exhibit F: Formal Complain! ofReprl'xaIfmm Janalhun Kaplan. submitted to investigations Division, inspector General ofthe intelligence Community. 2 December 2014 CC: WHISTLEBLUWEH Report government Without breaking the law. The Honorable Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Leader The Honorable Charles E. Schumer, Senate Minority Leader The Honorable Charles E. Grassley, Chair. Whistleblower Protection Caucus The Honorable Ron Wyden, Vice Chair, Whistleblower Protection Caucus The Honorable Dianne Feinstein, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence The Honorable Kamala Harris, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Intelligence Community Inspector General Department of Homeland Security, Of?ce of the Inspector General Mark S. Zaid, Founding Legal Partner, Whistleblower Aid Andrew P. Bakaj, Esq. Jonathan ll. Kaplan Whistleblewer Aid is a project of Values United, a U.S. tax-exempt, 501(c)(3) organization, BIN 264716045. Whis[leblower?lderg Anonymous. access via Tor browser: WBAidLaw?qutw??rlonion Content via over 'l'nr: Intelligence Community Inspectors generaf Investzga tions flwarcf is hereiiy presented to jonat/ian 9? Kaplan in recognition of his superior performance during the prosecution of a former Central Intelligence Agency Executive Director. Mr. Kaplan assisted in the prosecution of the former Executive Director for allegations of criminal actioity. He and other members of the Central Intelligence Agency Of?ce of Inspector General teamed with other government agencies and the United States Attorney's O?ice to gather, examine, and process thousands of classi?ed documents. The investigation led to the resignation of the former Executive Director, an indictment, and subsequent guilty plea. Mr. Kaplan?s accomplishments re?ect the highest credit on himself, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Intelligence Community. @ecemiier 1, 2009 Rest-fail. ?aw Inspector General O?i?ce of the (Director ofm'ationalInte?'igenee EXHIBIT EXHIBIT 2f33?568.html POLITICS 03/08r2013 12:29 pm ET Updated Mar 11, 2013 CIA Contractors Settle Hooters, Blue Man Group Kickback Case By Ryan J. Reilly WASHINGTON Three companies have agreed to pay the government $3 million for showering Central Intelligence Agency employees with tickets to sporting events and concerts; golf, fishing, and hunting excursions; and drinks and meals at restaurants like Hooters in an attempt to win contracts to provide cabling and wiring at CIA facilities. American Systems Corp, Anixter International Inc. and Corning Cable Systems LLC reached an agreement with the Justice Department to resolve violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Act, the DOJ announced Thursday. The allegations were brought forward in a whistleblower suit filed by former Anixter sales representative William Jones, who will receive $585,000 of the government?s recovery under a provision of the False Claims Act. in his December 2011 lawsuit, Jones alleged that nine CIA employees received expensive gifts from contractors trying to win bids for building projects nicknamed ?Falcon? and ?Buckeye.? CIA employees were treated to Red Sox, Cubs and Nationals baseball games; NASCAR events; trips to Boston, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Texas, Mexico and Beach; Blue Man Group concerts; hunting trips and ?scores of meals, drinks and snacks? at ?numerous restaurants, bars and coffee shops? including Hooters and Famous Dave?s, Jones alleged. One of the contractors, American Systems Corp., even gave a job to the stepson of CIA employee Daniel Faber, according to Jones?s lawsuit. A CIA spokeswoman said the agency had no comment on the suit or the nine CIA employees accused of receiving the kickbacks. David Samuel Panzer, a lawyer representing Jooes, had no immediate UPDATED: A CIA spokesman?s full statement: ?The CIA has a rigorous process for ensuring that any allegation of misconduct is thoroughly investigated and that our officers uphold the highest ethical and professional standards. Allegations of misconduct are reviewed by management, referred to the Inspector General, or, in cases involving the potential violation of federal law, referred to the Department of Justice. If a determination is made that an Agency officer violated the public trust, appropriate action will be taken. This case remains under review internally, and it would be inappropriate to provide any additional details at this time.? EXHIBIT November 24, 2014 MEMORANDUM FOR: Jonathan Kaplan, Special Agent (SA) Headquarters Operation Division FROM: Kim McManus, Special Agent in Charge (SAC), Headquarters Operation Division SUBJECT: Letter of Warning: Violation of GIG Policy Concerning Accessing and Searching 1. ?During a routine audit of CAESAR search logs, two searches associated with KAPLANJO were identi?ed for further review. The first search occurred on 6 August 2014, and revealed that you searched on ?Faber,? the last name of a subject previously investigated by DIG. The second search occurred on 29 October 2014, and revealed that you conducted a search of your own name, "Kaplan." Both searches occurred in CAESAR, the OIGIINV case management system. . 2. a? On 17 November 2014, you were advised of the audit results indicating a search for ?Faber? and "Kaplan" under your account. Management did not authorize the searches. You stated that you could not recall conducting the searches and you provided no reasonable? explanation to justify the searches. I am issuing this letter of warning because you violated GIG policy and guidance twice in the past several months knowing that the policy prohibits accessing materials for non-business purposes to include searches for self and others, as well as ?trolling?I of databases or file systems. These are serious violations and a repeat offense could lead to serious oonsequences. You are reminded of the entrusted role you have as an DIG Special Agent and the expectation that you wiil abide by DIG policies and guidance. 3. This memorandum will remain in your personnel ?le for one year. if no further incidents oocur during that time, the memorandum will be removed and destroyed. Failure to adhere to the DIG policies and procedures governing accessing and searching databases and records will make you subject to of?cial action of a more severe nature. Kim McManus, SAC HQSOPS Acknowledgment: Jonathan Kaplan Date Emma IT 2 December 2014 Mr. Inspector General of the Intelligence Community Investigations Division Fieston 3 Washington, DC. 20511 SUBJECT: Formal Complaint of Fieprisal 1. (U) By this letter I wish to formally file a complaint of Whistleblower Reprisal and report a violation of the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) by the Central Intelligence Agency?s Office of Inspector General. On 24 November 2014, Kim NI. McManus, Special Agent in Charge (SAC) for Headquarters Operations Section, Investigations Staff, Office of Inspector General, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), contacted me via secure email and told me to report to Dulles Discovery Three (DDS). Upon arriving at McManus directed me to a conference room and we were joined by Patrick Craddock, Assistant SAC for Intelligence and Integrity Investigations. McManus stated that I was being issued a Letter of Warning (LOW) for violating the Office's policy concerning accessing and searching. McManus did not provide any proof of my having violated said policy and I denied any wrongdoing. Issuance of the LOW was a direct threat to my retention of a Top Secret security clearance and came days after I was informed by Deborah Cline, Executive Officer for Investigations Staff, that I would not be interviewed for a vacancy I had applied to. These adverse personnel actions are a continuation and an escalation of retaliation I have endured after making protected disclosures to the Senate and House Intelligence Oversight Committees, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, and senior CIA management. 2. (U) The LOW stated that, during a routine audit of the OlG?s Case Administration and Evidence Status Reporting system, two searches associated with userid KAPLANJO [Note: my userid is were identified for further review. The first search presumably occurred on 6 August 2014, and revealed that the keyword ?Faber? was associated with this search. The second search reportedly occurred on 29 October 2014 and alleges that I had searched upon my own name. The LOW does not cite which OIG policy I presumably violated or what elements of said policy were not adhered to. I am unaware of any relevant policy that would be applicable given the alleged offenses. There is OIG 21 -1 (U) Access Control for Agency Databases, Research Applications, and Information Systems Owned by Outside Components. However, it only applies to information systems outside of the OIG. The first search I am accused of conducting was associated with my meeting with HPSCI Staffers and the document I provided Congress had resided on an OIG owned file server and I had vetted its release through the Agency?s Office of Congressional Affairs. Although I have no recollection of the second alleged search, it too was on an OIG owned information system. Therefore, I find the issuance of the LOW to be without merit and believe it was concocted in reprisal as a harassing tactic to demoralize and intimidate me. 3. (U) As background: In or about February 2013, I wrote a Letter of Urgent Concern to the oversight committees in which I raised abusive management practices, cronyism, and potential criminal conduct by David B. Buckley, Inspector General (IG) for the CIA and his subordinates. In the summer of 2013, I was interviewed by Staffers from both oversight committees. In or about May 2014, I wrote a second Letter of Urgent Concern to the committees regarding irregular personnel actions and potential reprisal against two of my colleagues that had made protected communications. In or about June 2014, I met with Paul J. Wogaman, Deputy Counsel for and reported potential investigative misconduct by ClA's OIG. In early August 2014, I met with Staffers from the House Permanent Select Committee for Intelligence and provided information of potential withholding of material evidence in the ?Faber? case that would have exonerated seven industrial contractors that had their security clearances revoked and employment terminated. Note: I had waived ?confidentiaiity? for each of these protected communications and on several occasions had informed McManus and other colleagues that I had reported wrongdoing to the appropriate authorities. Further, I had filed an age discrimination and hostile workplace complaint against ClA?s OIG management team with the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity (OEEO) in April 2013 (OEEO Case Number: 13-21) that is awaiting final adjudication. OIG management was interviewed by an OEEO Investigator and was therefore witting of my complaint. 4. (U) I allege that Buckley, Christopher Ft. Sharpley, Deputy Inspector General (DIG), Howard W. Cox, Assistant Inspector General for Investigations (AIGI), have created a hostile work environment and empowered subordinates McManus and Craddock to create derogatory documents that defame my reputation because I engaged in protected activities and made disclosures to Congress. I allege that Cox has interfered with my opportunities for career advancement in retaliation for making disclosures. In his testimony to OEEO, Cox stated that in 2013 he did not interview me for a SAC vacancy?because, in his opinion, I was not qualified. However, Fieport of Investigation indicated that I possessed more managerial experience than any other applicant. Special Agent Anthony .J. Cipparone was among those applicants OEEO had compared my experience level to. In or about October 2014, I applied to a vacancy notice for the position of Deputy AIGI, but was toid in November 2014 that I was being denied an interview. However, Cipparone was interviewed for said vacancy. The fact an employee of lesser experience was interviewed and I was not indicates bias/reprisal. It is my perception that have been unjustly denied opportunities for career progression. OIG management?s actions affected the terms and conditions of my employment and have frustrated my efforts to perform my duties?making my job impossible in an apparent attempt to force my early separation from the Agency. 5. (U) allege that Buckley, Sharpley, Cox, McManus, and Craddock engaged in a pattern of retaliatory conduct that has violated: (U) Pertinent Federal and Agency Regulations? 6. (U) Presidential Policy Directive 19 (PPD 19) expressly prohibits retaliation against any officer or employee of a covered agency within the IC, prohibits retaliation by affecting eligibility for access to classified information, and allows for employees who allege reprisal to request an external review by a three-member Inspector General panel if the applicable review process is exhausted. PPD 19 states in part, This Presidential Policy Directive ensures that employees (1) serving in the Intelligence Community or (2) who are eligible for access to classified information can effectively report waste, fraud, and abuse while protecting classified national security information. It prohibits retaliation against employees for reporting waste, fraud, and abuse. (U) The Intelligence Community Whistleblcwer Protection Act (ICWPA) of 1998 provides a secure means for employees to report matters of ?urgent concern" to the intelligence committees of Congress and allegations regarding classified information. ICWPA contains no explicit mechanism for obtaining a remedy for retaliation stemming from disclosure of an urgent concern to Congress. It merely allows an IC whistleblower who has faced an adverse personnel action because he disclosed an urgent concern to the congressional intelligence committees to then use the disclosure procedures to inform the committees of the retaliation. Executive Order 12674, Principles of Ethical Conduct for Government Officers and Employees, specifies in part that ?employees shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that they are violating the law or ethical standards.? (U) The US Office of Government Ethics (OGE), Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch, and Agency Regulation (AR) Misuse of Position, specify that an employee shall not use his office for the private gain of friends with whom the employee is affiliated, or to give preferential treatment to a friend. In particular, Conflict of Interest, Lack of of cites federal law and policy on federal ethics regulations, including conflict of interest and lack of impartiality. Standards of Official Conduct, specifies that all Agency employees must adhere to the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch, which in part, governs impartiality in performing official duties and misuse of position. specifies that ?Agency employees are expected to act impartially in the performance of their duties and not to give preferential treatment to any private organization or individual.? In addition, Misuse of Position, specifies that an employee shall not use his office for .the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated.? 7. (U) The Standards of Ethicaf Conduct for Emptoyees of the Executive Branch, published by OGE, is codified in Title 5 C.F.R. Pertinent are: Title 5 2635, 101, which requires that employees avoid any actions that create the appearance that they are violating the law or ethical standards for federal employees. Title 5 2635.502 also requires employees whose duties would affect the financial interests of a friend, relative, or person with whom he is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity to determine whether the circumstances of a matter would cause a reasonable person with knowledge of relevant fact 5 to question their impartiality and if so, to not participate in the matter. Title 5 2635.701, Use of public office for private gain, specifies in part: An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity, including nonprofit organizations of which the employee is an officer or member, and persons with whom the employee has or seeks employment or business relations. Title 5 C.F.FL 2635.702fd), Performance of official duties affecting a private interest, provides: To ensure that the performance of his official duties does not give rise to an appearance of use of public office for private gain or of giving preferential treatment, an employee whose duties would affect the financial interests of a friend, relative or person with whom he is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity shall comply with any applicable requirements of [5 2635.502]. 8. (U) To the layperson these individual acts may appear to be the result of crass individuals or an uncomfortable working environment, but I allege the perpetrators [Buckley, Sharpley, Cox, McManus, and Craddock] are highly knowledgeable of investigative techniques and have conspired to skillfully craft these harassing tactics as pretext to avoid detection. It is only when these acts are viewed in the collective that a pattern is revealed that demonstrates that Buckley and his subordinates have created a dysfunctional office environment in which managers routinely berate and belittle personnel, show contempt for the abilities of career government professionals, cause staff to fear coming to work, and engaged in acts of reprisalr?retaliation for having made disclosures that afford transparency into OIG operations. 1 allege these adverse personnel actions were an effort by Buckley andlor his subordinates to quash further dissent by senior officers of the CIA. (U) PROPOSED 9. (U) Per John Brennan, Director of Central Intelligence statement to CIA employees on 18 March 2013, ?You have my assurance that and my senior leadership team will not tolerate any acts of reprisal. ..Harassment and discriminatory practices are incompatible with our Agency?s mission and simply have no place at CIA. 10. (U) Therefore, I seek the following resolutions andfor remedies: . Harrassing behavior must stop! I An examination of the matters raised here to determine the appropriateness and legality of the actions taken. - Establish a meaningful oversight mechanism to ensure that all of the Inspector General?s management practices and assignment processes are transparent and fair, free of bias and discrimination, and in accordance with laws and regulations. (U) Punitive Remedies? David B. Buckley, Christopher B. Sharpley, Howard W. Cox, Kim M. McManus, and Patrick Craddock be required to attend IC Whistleblower Protection Act training and then instruct employees on the ICWPA. - One Year Letter of Fteprimand to be placed in the personnel file of: Buckley, Sharpley, Cox, McManus, and Craddock. Each to be prohibited from receipt of Awards and Promotions for One Year. (U) Liquidated damages? Any and all references to a Letter of Warning are to be expunged from Agency records and a letter on Agency letterhead to be provided to Complainant verifying their record has been expunged. 11.This Memorandum contains information protected by the Privacy Act. You should consult with the Office of General Counsel prior to further dissemination of any information to ensure compliance with the Privacy Act. Respectfully, Jonathan H. aplan Special Agent Headquarters Operations Section Investigations Office of Inspector General Central Intelligence Agency ism?mu. :mra?p i MHQV It) Lj LIMP-13 RFLLAQE e?ofaer . . EJOFWW til we 5] .- Sworn Statement EEO ?aee ?hrietophee: 5 e1 I do hereby aolemnly affirm .anoer penelty of perjury that the information I am about to give 13 true to the beat of my knowledge and heliefg I have been advised that Ramohand of the Office of Equal Employment OpportunityF Central Intelligence Agency? WashingtonP Decay ie inveetigatihg a oompleint of employment dieorimination filed by Jonathan Kaplan under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, ae amended? and provided for under Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations? eeotion 1613. I underetand that my enewere ehoule refleot my own reoolleotione and peroeptione of the in oneetionn In'aooitionr I tmet take care that I no not dieoloee either the questions aekeo or my to any potential I will C??rdinatt my reeponee with or eohmit it through my normal management approval/release Channelea will return the eigned affidavit to Ramohano. 1?12? "f I underetand that the inveetigation will the following leoue and Beeie l: Complainant allegee haraeement leading to hootile work environment on the haeie of reprieal for partioipating in EEG activity by Oftioe or Inepeotor General managere David Chrietopher Kim ano Howard Co when from July E?le to Deoemher 3014 the following oeonrred: effient lea?eel (gt enema twang Him - 111511 11:31:21. 11111 E11 11E. I 11511 TAKE "?1311? ?371111 IEEIJIEE E11117 f?fo?'o . I .I .. Iain OI July H1111, E:i.m 11o IEE- o.I IEEnltIng In a houI InLE.EIogation. ,a - I - 13.0n 24 November 2014, M, CompM E:1nant a oI Warn.1ng (10W) violEIIng tho Offio EIE policy oonoe:rning m1.ing and on nImE ouln 1NovEmbEI 2014 HowEId EeniEd Complainant an interview .IEI thE DEputy for .Envagtigat1.ons poE .Ition for which Comp].ainant applIEd 4 20.14 Kim to document CompJ.E1nEn: for 1.aI.lIng to mE EL oompl.EtIon deadlines for iig?g who ggwum%g1 Eomujalnant 411E911.D d1.1.w on ha?i?m o:I IEEI1EET .IE: In EEO Eotivitv EhEn In wovEmoEI ZGIE C, denia? Complainant an for the Depo.ty InEoEotoI El ooEIt.Ion Io.1 which r"r.1111111"11.11o111 EpplIE 3 Issue and 31 Compla1.nan? alleges dis :oIimInat:lon on thE o1 repII.EEl fo.r pEIiJEIthIng In HFEO activity woen on 3 January. I01.5 David Ea, Christopher Kim - Anthony CW Chad? SII Eat: CIF and Howard C, EonELIuEtiv dIthanEI Flwnuw Eo1roo1'g poILjon ma1.h your St?t?me?tf?nEWE.?i- End thE n: anEEIInq all EHEWEIE EIE at or level wIEh Nu L7 Please WEI 1o31ow1.ng quEE: L.1.onEq (U) 1E yo11I HE may qr?d? I ?d *tE E1: of thE.EllEgEd IHGI en .. .. . 11.211? 1 E111111111113IEE 1: 11.1 1111 1111110 . f'1?r?fi737] 777770" ?udi-f?TJ Li. Mtg/I (July 77777777 20177. 717777 state ymur current position, if different. {77 777.77777: 777777777777? 777??. 57773: 777.777777 77 777777777 7777:777 {7777 777777 777777777 77777779 7 777777777 777 77 717 7777377 77777777? 7777777: 717777 77777 777 7777 and possi'timn mf bath your fir7tw and Secondwline 77777777777 at 777 time of 777 alleged 777777777. 7 7% 73 777: 77 77777 7777 7777777777 777 777 7777772717 77777.7. 7771777777 1? :7777777 777 7777777777 777 777 777777777 77 777 77.7777 7777777 77377777 777 77777777 7777 717777 77777 your relatimn7hip 77 77777777. 777777 777'7 777 77777777377 7::7 777 77777 777777 7777 77777777777 777777 7777 777 7477777777777! 7777.777 ram :77: :77 777.777.?: 73777 ($73177: Are you 77777 of Complainant?7 prior 7777771777777 in 777777777 770 17 7777 717777'7777777 the date 777 770077 77777 of 07771777777?7 prior 7777177777707 in protected EEO 77777771777 7 777177 777 you were made aware, and indicate what you 7777 the prior 7777777777 70 77. [917777 7113777 your 17017;. if any? in prior activityo 717777777. 7.7: 3:77-77 77' 77777777777777" 7 7:777 777-7717777777 77:77 17': 77 777. 7777.73. 77.7 7:77.777 751.? 7:373 7777:7777- 777777 77777 7777 7777777: 7 ?7:77777 7777777.777 "1.777 777 @77777377? 77707 7777 77 7 W777H77. $7 1 7* "n I: 1-.- ll' Page 3 7211':- 737:. 7.7.71.7. .. E3133 3? 33.3 3333 335333333 3333.031 33333333311 1333?), {?333 3333 F33 93333 [j ?g G?m31333333 33333333333 333 3333333333333 3333333 in 3333 33333333 3 33.3333333 3f 33331333333 33333 33333im333333 3333333 33 333 33.333 33 5 3313 33 4 3 333 313 333:3 13 333 33 on 3133333133 33 retaliation far p3rtj.cipating 3.3 330 activiti333 313333 333t.3 whethez you have 3333 part:3.L cipat3d in p.r3333t33 FLEO activit133 {333 333 3 Comp33333333 33 witn333.J yea, PleaEE provid3 3 3333.3'ption of your prior activity3 EU3 33333333: 333 3333 13333 and 33333 13: In 03 33333: 333.3 901.3;P3mgi31333L 333393.33 x3ferr3d him to the Office .3 ecuxitv3 resulting 13,3 33333 3cu1333_int3333g3tio3: 3 313333 3t3t3 when 333 hOW'you first 3333m3 33333 of _3 this matter. 3W3 333333333 33 wwu?g 3333 ummu? 33333 333 33333933 33 333333333 3 $9 33 3-33 3333 3. 3313333 33333 33 33333 ?Wij??t 33% 133331333 33 333 3 233333 333 333 333 33333333 33 33331333333'3 33333333333 33 333 33333, 33333 33 333 33333333 33 3333 3333 L1- Lu {an E31 ?9 Did you play 3 3013 in Complainant*3 referral to the 3 Off333 of S3curity Gr 33 you 3333 33y fi.r3th333 knowl3dg3 of 3333 313im? IE 3333 p13333 33 333133 your knowledge of 33 3313 33333333 t3 OLEIL3 of ?ecurity in 3333313 P13333 1333333 333333 3333313333 333 the 3331.3on E33 and cont3nt of th3 333333313 313333 witnu??3a and provide 3333m333333333 33 3333333133 3333333 Lhe Tab at which it 33 33t33h333 3 3333333 333333333 3 Page 3 of h? 333323333 33333f3333 3223? 9.3. 11.11.111.11 1113111 1" 111 1"??111171111151"?11171 bNLh? mixtuwm fay-I . 1.1- 193 ELWQEETE. Emm?iw1V1mE waE GED 3333? 55433- ?it; Ilgn?uyi?iw?nbm ?l fall?3. .11 E1 immar??y EE 11111m1 ME had Eewp111u1n11 1 ME EL 11dw111d h1E1-11111111 GIG fi?1.1 EEG mat?a the my '1 my $11 11mm1g?r1 E1 makE Mpmw??r1?iw ?a?111w11 wiEh Ea in izhaim meE EE pa Wa1n1ng (LOW1 fur 11011I1ng the 01f1wn 1- 0011c ?ono'vninu Harv-dd- ?rm-?hi mmuwm?u-H?m-JL 1 .. 31(01'911111 11:11.1 when and how lymu first ban came aware of thiE matt3I1 11g11n1 EEyund Emu h1.v1 p1111?11 1 EE 1 EE Wham 1 GE thiW- HE. 111E hi1 WEE LEW (U) mid ynu play any 1011 or do you hava any fir?th?nd kn1111dg1 abvut tha issuance Ef LOW, to include but 11mit1d to dir1cting1 a?viEing1 awardinating DE concuxring on miEhEE the cententa 0E the decision to 1 If y111 piaase 1 meacribe ymur in detailr explaining why yam E901 any 1Eti0n1 you didn 1H1hwv1u1om EE WEE E11p1E11w111Ew uE we EE 11mm EE did 111E mg p?mmi WE1111EE WEE and EE E1111 1111111111111 111 gr11'111111111' 112511111111 13: 1111131. 111111 11111111111111 Eha 5'3 21 ??31111; {"1511 111-1}. .5 "1.31111. I r; - 9.2" . 5w: 1'21! rd 1 - Page '13110 W. . . I . IVWJIJI STPJ U?f _.EJsuea and J.c and L3 _Ir1 Novembex 1.1. - I. 'Com . C. denJed Langijinfnt an ?-Dr the Deputy Aasistant Inapector LHVEbtl??kig?i powitign for whimh he applied 10. Did .you p.1ay any J.01J In dMEnrmJ.nation cf whether 01 noI: to i.nt Complainant fo.r the Deputy AJJiJuant Genera] EQJ InvaJ ELleivhu -If pleaae exp.1.a.: .n i'ul..ly yaur rnleg I?m ?#333ng il- (U) If you played a role. what did you recommend . JJng.rdI.ng whether Cnmp.lainant Jhoml.d be intexv?ewed fax the P1525138: Jtat?te yum made the recommendation you didr including on what Cliteri. a you has ad youJ recommendatinn. be speCincDecembei. .JUJI _th M. thremLean L0 monumenL Comp1.aJnant J01: Jailing t0 me at caJ=e campletion deadlines for hiJ cases . 12. (U) Pl.aase state when ahd how .you fi.Jst: bLuame aware 01' this matzter 21E [?lm 33th J.I IJE-J??iiflg thi?s. wmwuguum amm JmapmmaJmIJ Jam mamagi mg LIEJ J-erl amt'l JJ 523?? the waJ a pmwlemJJm ngamd. d6 Jew bmJJeJa mnxeaaw?mbmw thaw have '??li?plaul?um? in"; thatPage ui $4 5 . J: ?If: ?awn E2, L-.. WE warm? wt?h 13. you p.La a Eolo to include but not limited to d1.Eeot:ing advj.E.ingi or concurring on a decj.3ion to to.El rompLanEot that. he wou.1.d be dooumontod Eail.in.g to meet case doadlineo? .LE yes. dosoE:Lb@ your- role in detail End explain quEy why you t.ook the actions you did. Provide documentation? a3 availablef stating the Tab at whigh it iE attached. 'i-w 1.5-. . urn o? JEEJE om . 14. (U) Is thoro an office ool..i.oy rooatdl?o tah deoE not ooaoJEne Fla so in i.t and pEov:i.do dooumonr Lation, statingf the Tab at which it 18 attached. 2 Nana-V 1 . we: I do not anall E.EE of. EEnd. Eot Euoh Eovo??iomtmwo Emm?mrda tho F?gp?wk?w E: city LEE: 1mm E: ?9 ME. Es: Claim 3: Complainant on Hag-Arm iv. of.? Egal 1oz in prioEE 3E0 Eot1_vitv HUGH 2915_ _Davi? E.. MIJQEHPHG Sup Kim M.. o?thonY C?r ?had 8., a_nd_ Howard oqycg ed hJ.s oops truotivo dJJohaqu 15. (U) Whom did you become oE Complainant?s ini:ondod Please the anooE in detail. I . w. I Em?pomEE: do not Eanll oE* E. only took EmuEmiooamo by EithoG EE. oowwlmEu??t Em? I E- up omo ?aw 1Eoo amid ho motE?E~ ?a E: Page of .aijl. 1.111.111?: IL: .. . 555i; ILE EEFIJ - Inn r. p- - MM 7 en ewe] 'nir'Eiin?i?mrrei I- '?I-u?u-nu-nn. - n-E?n?a-u h. 'nr l?q The Compleinent ellegee that DIG conspired to retaliate to mete hie working eon resignation/retirement. managere egeinet him for hie EEO activity-end ditione euoh that it weuld force his Please respond, (U3 em 1 'gr .1-.-. . eem'rnmme?iEeewvare ee menegeme em engenm @Twn "nun-u: um?ierh?ih?? $35.34;? - Gareth?: mike-1M .. MI 17? Did you ever reference Complainant?e eligibility to retire or planned retirement? It yes? explain thoroughly the oontert in which items eeme up. iWi ?eepenee: We. 1? 18? Complainant ellegee thatr as Head of the Career eerviee, you felled.te enforce personnel policiee_thet would have ensured feir end unbiased treetmentr and failed te numerone complaints of dieeriminetion and eriminel wrongdoing, therefore eontribnting te Compleinent?e alleged nonetruetive dieehergeu respond. iiUl' Eire eye-nee: i: were: net: seem mil" 932116: err: mtg-L: see the leepeeter wee? ?emyleinentie eemmeeEe emhignene ene genemelw emu? ?ieegree with them in geenregw 19. (U) Were Complainant?s oeworkere eubjeoted to the eeme conditiene ee Complainant? Were the Compleinent?e working oonditione (deadlines? menegement overeigntin etc?) lees. fevereblelthen other reepend in deteilu I iranPage 8 0i rewiriw . - . Te We Th RH VAST 5323;, ?n-r?rr' Ur. '5 PARENT: .u 63G: The ?a I?-n a! (in; {mm ?45513; unknown]: {It liJHI?l?fwaas Eda-? Gu'? I af? .t I were eehjeet Te E: i :2 I. HIE re? Hui-31;? _fjgw?u . Eamh 3? WTWW ET QEL WUYk?hq 30?. (U) Complainant Tndieetee Thet immediately prior to hTe decision to retire, he wee euhjeetee To the eeme eendit.i.ene That led to Vultuie C. and Ane.rew being waT.T.Ted out: of the huTTeTng end he.T1:g en Adminie stTetive Leave Te yenT: knowledge, wee the Complainant being eve'Lueted TOT placement on Administrative leave endfer being TTem ithe build1i.ngT reepond .T.n detail TneT.ud e:Lng how you knew what you do end yoeT Tole Tn The TT anynee, me my TheeTeegeu . 21. TempeTL The eithetiehe of ?a1.eTTe C. and AndT Tee 8 to That Of the Compleiheht. note how the e] ere end hee They ere different, end note whether Tyeu eTe ewere of preteeted EEO an the peTt of either Valerie C. eT Andrew TUE Reepenee: TT he em Le .5155: 34' 3,23. yacht; warms, Tie-T: Time-a TTzeITeyeau'il 5:33: ElJL-fi Tm ewe; eeTTeTnTy Te Tee ?ay hhet .. W?w? me The eeTTeTee Lem memeaTemeeL a 22. (U) Do you knew of ether employee e'in the Office of the [neheetox GeneTel who TetTTee Then erLngATTy planned within the peeT'3 yeeTe? If vee, plea Te the nemee and eTete WhetheT they eeTe euhjeet tn the eeme Tendittiene ee (Temple: Hunt end whetTti #51: they heel EEG activityPage 03 323213..? L: Liailw h? GEE: 5E: JR EEKEgg-3.3., I m? 31:3? 5 LEM-TE: -. I II ;cI deq?HE I wEw?? Em Ehmt with Th. e: 11", 4 .- EEgai?iEv f? En . EIE EEIE 3E 23. (U) DO know at oizhEI in the Office of the .Enspector who pazticipated in EEG activity. EEIE 'Ot??ubjELt to same conditions: EE Complainant End/or dId net I (U) NE. 34? WEE Comp.EEinInt conE:i.dE :Eor any service explain lzhoIough.Ew why 03E not and EIplEin howI ompIEInEhI?: hiEIon aligns with the for thE Attach dmcumentation; Es Etatihg the TEE at which it Is attached. E- 3? rim IEE Eui?'? . Li?Eula 3% EII1EIE EE EEVEII IIE TEII EIMI LEIE EE Em Em. Q: General Quastions: 25. (U) you Ewart-I Ef'thc?I EgEhcyEE Entiwharaasment polIEy? II ItEtE.haw yam and what yeu km]; it turn irmlucijmg you understand 13E. WE Em- Elly itEEightEnE? ?If 35w.) .E.EE.IEE Em}? EIEHI EE I EE.EE EIEI d?mm?wmwn m3: ??3ng I II l1 I. 1}eg SEE-I 31E tau .JLII 5; . 15'] - Page IQ of: I.II.I.I.1EI1 1'51"th 153* JJLqu/Jix?? 'fv I Em :Tmni?? 321.1: wt; Git; 15:13. El Ei'?ld? $13363? will: ?mint; n? . (U) Did Compla:Lnant make known t0 you that ha consid9.rad any 01. the ?l.Leged an.idents ea in cla?.m$ l?M'Ld ha:tas$ingy LW $til.e OLLWHEJU on VGluL1dto1y fat hi? engagement :L.n p1nt:ealzad antivity? If yes, plea?e emgmtai.n 1J1 il?t??ii. (Eff Ri- 65 41envi10nment/ activity? 231 LU) f'i?lv retailaiLon - a -. -..--J ..1 - 4.131? uil' 11.151.31119: i? It: LEM, 15: a?r*m mew aiImqmtiwns was: CL 111: yea; did you takea -ctien in teaponae to 3 claim of a hat t:LJ.e watt harassment/retaliation for protected EEO lease axp.1a:1.n tuLLy you ate; been accusc.d of h?.ta? or :foI EEO p1ev1oualy? If yas, g.nleaac explain fHIlv will Ayp?qmiiv ma mm mm.@ aw the m1tanmarI. 1 LUCIE) 3111171311 53011. v11.? "1.11115 2 142mm, $331,131.11 gr; ?@1555? #511511: ?t Wh??Almde??LiIEhLU thtur GIG ha}.vm in hmtaaw Amamt max haw; I mwtaliatad 29. Page 11 of /y Q, $311351?th ?13 mi LU) Dixi inue:nt1gatj.o Complainant um I hm't bman fwund ta hmv? dame aw in ymamrlufu m1vil am? militawy awrviaa, you take any of tha actions at ia?ue in thi? t0 harass; disetiminate'ot tetaliate againgt on the bAEi? of hia in protected EEO activity? if; .1- Il'l_l IpluI l__l it nil. 9.3.1.6 223-11. I131 M: IH-I '3 rm vino [Ev I. LJJHEHTHIED "Ito-f" No. 30: Do you havo any reason to boiiovo that any othor ogv?cy officiaio took any of tho aotiono of innue in thio investigation to hotnnoy diootiminato or to Complainant on tho banin of EEO activity? tniioto against nit invoivomnnt in protected to; Roomonno; to. 31- Did you take any aotionv to force or onoontago Complainant to resign/totito? If yoor iid you take any of .theso actions to rotali ate against Complainant for his participation in prior protected EEO activity? tvy Rooponno: Ho. 32. nt any point? nave you hoard Agonoy offioinlo involved in tho aotiono at inono mnto tofotonoo to Compiainant?o EEO ootivity? If year provide the name of the offioinly what was oaidP when it woo naitlr who wao present; and any other relevant oontott. WE: tattopoxiooz Ho i, 33? (U) Can you Suggest witnonson not previously nameo in this affidavit who can provide relevant information? if yen, identify by title? and nature of information to be providedtattoo oz; on i 34. (U) It thorn any nooitionol infotmationp to ln?iudv doonmontntion that in relevant to this invovtlg?tion that a 1 . .. has not boon included nbovo? It to; plonoo de -.. . ,f -y . ?tfiomt tnttioi? Page ii oi {wgih? . - - IFIED vowo nu?h in LEJWIL Mguk" -. 4 . Claarly events. State the Tab at R?apmnaa: Nana th atat&m&mtt aawaw @?mpl?imtau I have read thl? lists. I hereby Solemnly .perjury that the inf?rma complete t? th? that the informatimn appli' If additiwnal information 13 which it is attached. iatad with ?wm?l entire statement? pages, including thia paga; awear ti?? I hava ptovidad it true hast of my providing . :tha alleged Ecriminatury datumentaryr plec?e. ?t mlrau?y pmwwidad in aimamtf? many wthax con?isting of 13 and any identity or affirm un?er yenalty of and understand it ?at privileged-and may be .. any attachmentaf an? heliefui'r" c- '1 r1455- 99;;ymwt? gr" K-..- Executed on: x123 Page