THIS SITE IS INTENDED FOR REPORTING FRAUD, WASTE, AND ABUSE COMPLAINTS
INVOLVING UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

DEFENSE HOTLINE COMPLAINT FORM

Defense Hotline
The Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-1900

FWA Hotline:  (800) 424-9098
SWA Hotline:  (877) 363-3348
Facsimile:  (703) 604-8567

YOUR COMPLAINT HAS BEEN SENT

  Thank you. Your submission was sent at 03/03/2013 01:03 AM.   Please print this page for your records.

DATA REQUIRED BY THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974

PURPOSE:  To secure sufficient information to inquire into matters presented and to provide appropriate responses, referrals, or inquiries, where deemed appropriate.

ROUTINE USES:  Information is used for official purposes within the Department of Defense; to answer complaints or respond to requests for assistance, advice, or information; by Members of Congress and other Government agencies when determined by the Inspector General to be in the best interest of the DoD.  Department of Defense blanket routine uses also apply.

AUTHORITY  (a) Inspector General Act of 1978, As Amended; (b) Title 5, U.S.C. §§ 2301 and 2302; (c) DoD Directive 5106.01; (d) DoD Instruction 7050.01; (e) DoD Directive 1401.03; (f) DoD Directive 7050.06.
   
 PART I - YOUR INFORMATION
You must provide our office with your disclosure election.  Your selection of one of the three filing options below implies you have reviewed the provided information and understand the choice you are making.  If you have any questions concerning this, you may phone the Defense Hotline at 1-800-424-9098.  Please keep in mind that your decision to elect anonymity may limit our ability to conduct an inquiry, if one is warranted, or to appropriately address your issue.  In the event our office needs to contact you for additional information or clarification, please provide an e-mail or physical address and/or telephone number where you feel comfortable in accepting our contact.  Your complaint cannot be processed without your election below.
   
 ANONYMOUS (If you elect this status, do NOT provide your name or other personal identifier)
X
 CONSENT TO DISCLOSURE (I consent to the disclosure of my identity outside the Defense Hotline on a need-to-know basis)
 NON-CONSENT TO DISCLOSURE (I do not consent to the dislosure of my identity outside the Defense Hotline)
  I understand that if the Director, Defense Hotline determines the allegation(s) in my complaint cannot be investigated without disclosing my identity on a need-to-know-basis to organizations outside the Defense Hotline, my lack of consent may prevent further action from being taken on my complaint.  I further understand that even if I elect confidential status, my identity may be disclosed, if required by applicable legal authority, or the Director, Defense Hotline, determines that such disclosure is otherwise unavoidable.
  First Name: Te
  Last Name: Lin
     
  Employee Status: Non Fed Gvmt
  Assigned DoD Branch: N/A  
  Other Agency or Office: Taiwan Civil Government (If not a DoD employee, state where you work)
  Component/Office: Washington D.C. Office
  Job Title/Series/Grade: Director
     
  Mailing Address: 1250 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 200
  City and State: Washington D.C.
  Zip/Postal Code: 20036
  E-mail Address: tehsinglin@gmail.com, rgroup.tw@gmail.com
     
  Home Telephone:

tehsinglin            Best contact time:  Afternoon

  Work Telephone:

202 261 6508            Best contact time:  Afternoon

  Mobile Telephone:

626 215 2595            Best contact time:  Afternoon

     
 
X YES, I AM WILLING TO BE INTERVIEWED           NO, I DO NOT WANT TO BE CONTACTED
   
   
 PART II - ALLEGATION DETAILS
Use this section to provide details of your allegation(s).  Please clearly state the subject of your complaint, (applicable DoD office or component, personnel, and/or program affected), and provide names, dates, times, and locations in the applicable fields.  Also state how you became aware of the problem, efforts made thus far to correct the problem, and let us know what other offices you have contacted for assistance, and if you have outstanding complaints with those offices. If you have supporting documentation or chronologies, it would be helpful to enclose those documents along with your complaint filing. You will be given an opportunity to upload documents for submittal at the end of this form.  If you wish to file a reprisal complaint, do not use this form. For reprisal complaints, please visit the DoD Hotline website at: http://www.dodig.mil/hotline, and visit the 'Reprisal Complaints' page for more information. 
 
WHAT IS YOUR COMPLAINT ABOUT?
 
  Select an allegation category: Programs/Projects - Gross Mismanagement  
  If you selected "Other" please specify:  
 
  SUBJECT(S) - WHO COMMITTED THE ALLEGED WRONGDOING?  WHAT DOD PROGRAM OR OFFICE IS INVOLVED?
     
  Subject's Status Civilian
  Subject's Rank/Title/Grade Sec. of Defense
  Subject's First Name: Chuck
  Subject's Last Name: Hagel
  DoD Component or Program: Military Government administration   (Spell out acronyms)
  DoD Organization or Office Affected: United States Military Government   (Spell out acronyms)
     
  Subject's Status Civilian
  Subject's Rank/Title/Grade Former Sec. of Defense
  Subject's First Name: Leon
  Subject's Last Name: Panetta
  DoD Component or Program: Military Government administration   (Spell out acronyms)
  DoD Organization or Office Affected: United States Military Government   (Spell out acronyms)
     
  Subject's Status Civilian
  Subject's Rank/Title/Grade Former Sec. of Defense
  Subject's First Name: Robert
  Subject's Last Name: Gates
  DoD Component/Program: Military Government administration   (Spell out acronyms)
  DoD Organization or Office Affected: United States Military Government   (Spell out acronyms)
     
 
   
  ALLEGATION DETAILS  (WHAT, WHEN, HOW, AND WHY):
Provide a summary of your complaint, to include an event chronology, if appropriate
 
1. WHAT DID THE SUBJECT(S) DO OR FAIL TO DO THAT WAS WRONG?

My complaint involves gross mismanagement of the "Taiwan question" by the Dept. of Defense (DOD) from the coming into force of the San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) on April 28, 1952, to the present. This is a period of over sixty years.

Under Article 6 of the US Constitution, the content of the Senate-ratified SFPT is part of the "Supreme law of the land." However, the Dept. of Defense has treated the SFPT as a "lost treaty" in dealing with all issues concerning the defense of Taiwan territory as well as dealing with the human rights of the native Taiwanese people.

DOD officials also appear to have developed a case of "collective amnesia" in regard to the history of WWII in the Pacific in general, and the role of US military forces in liberating Taiwan in particular. As a result of this malady, they have failed to recognize the overall DOD responsibility in the governance of Taiwan.

The historical record shows that all military attacks against Taiwan in the WWII period were done by US military forces. No other military forces, including the Australian, British, French, USSR, or Chinese, participated. The United States is the conqueror, hence the United States has the obligation to conduct the military occupation of Taiwan. The US Supreme Court has rendered many decisions saying that "conquered territory is under the dominion of the conqueror," and that the conqueror has the obligation (and right) to govern the territory. For a compilation of relevant Supreme Court decisions on this subject, see -- http://www.taiwanbasic.com/key/dc/conqudm6.htm

[[ Note: All internet URLs mentioned in this Defense Hotline Online Complaint Form and the Attachment may be conveniently accessed from   http://taiwanus.net/tcg/hotcomp.htm ]]

Indeed, the SFPT confirms the role of the United States as "the principal occupying power," in addition to clearly specifying the jurisdiction of the United States Military Government (USMG) over Taiwan, the Ryukyus, and some other islands.

( According to US Army Field Manual FM 27-10, "Military government is the form of administration by which an occupying power exercises governmental authority over occupied territory." A complete analysis of military jurisdiction under the US Constitution and the Taiwan status question is provided on the following webpage http://www.taiwanbasic.com/key/dc/milgovex.htm )

Notably, for Taiwan, the day-to-day authority for the administration of this military occupation was delegated to the Chinese Nationalists (Chiang Kai-shek et al.) in General Order No. 1 of Sept. 2, 1945. In the SFPT, Japan renounced all right, title, and claim to "Formosa and the Pescadores" (aka "Taiwan"), without specifying any receiving country. In other words, under US constitutional law and indeed under international law, Taiwan cannot be said to be part of the national territory of the Republic of China.

As written in the book Military Government and Martial Law, by William E. Birkhimer, "Military government continues until legally supplanted." However the US Commander in Chief has never issued any proclamation regarding the end of USMG jurisdiction over Taiwan. (This may be directly compared to the situation in the US conquered territories of Guam, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines beginning 1898, as well as the Ryukyu islands after WWII. The end of USMG jurisdiction in each territory was marked by a formal presidential proclamation.) Hence, Taiwan has remained as territory under the jurisdiction of USMG up to the present day.

Importantly, during the period of USMG jurisdiction of the Ryukyus, DOD issued "Certificates of Identity" to native islanders to serve as travel documents. (The legal relationship between the United States and the Ryukyu islands was discussed in Cobb v. United States, US Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit, 191 F.2d 604, June 11, 1951, as amended on Aug. 27, 1951, and it was determined that the United States held "de facto sovereignty." Significantly, the judges did not consider the discussion of this legal relationship to be a "political question." And indeed, the relationship between occupied Cuba and the United States was fully discussed in earlier cases such as Neely v. Henkel, 180 U.S. 109 (1901) and Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901).)

In consideration that the Dept. of Defense (DOD) has the overall responsibility for USMG jurisdiction over Taiwan, a valid complaint of "gross mismanagement" can be made against the Sec. of Defense in DOD for failing to use his rulemaking powers to establish a procedure so that native Taiwanese persons can apply for Certificates of Identity (COIs) to use as travel documents.

To underscore this, it must be added that to classify native Taiwanese people as "Republic of China citizens" is totally without legal basis. Since the Japanese surrender ceremonies in 1945, the United States has never recognized Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan.

It is also important to note that the issuance of COIs to native Taiwanese persons is a matter to be handled by the DOD, and not by the Dept. of State.

2. WHAT RULE, REGULATION, OR LAW DO YOU BELIEVE TO HAVE BEEN VIOLATED?

In failing to use his rulemaking powers to establish a procedure so that native Taiwanese persons can apply for Certificates of Identity (COIs) to use as travel documents, the Sec. of Defense has failed to follow the content of the

(A) Senate-ratified San Francisco Peace Treaty (1952), including established precedent for dealing with the affairs of native inhabitants of the Ryukyu islands under Article 4(b), and the continuing role of United States as "the principal occupying power" under Article 23(a) up to the present day,

(B) Internationally established laws of war precedent which gives the USA ("the conqueror") full jurisdiction over Taiwan, especially in light of the aforementioned Articles of the SFPT,

(C) Taiwan Relations Act (1979), wherein there is no longer recognized any entity called "Republic of China" under US law, and therefore there is no authority for such a non-recognized entity to issue passports to native inhabitants of Taiwan,

(D) Taiwan Relations Act (1979), human rights clause: See 22 USC 3301(c.) "Nothing contained in this chapter shall contravene the interest of the United States in human rights, especially with respect to the human rights of all the approximately eighteen million inhabitants of Taiwan. The preservation and enhancement of the human rights of all the people on Taiwan are hereby reaffirmed as objectives of the United States . . . ",

(E) United States Constitution, and relevant Supreme Court rulings, which clearly hold that conquered territory is under the "dominion" of the conqueror. In particular, see the discussion of "dominion" in United States v. State of California, 332 U.S. 19 (1947),

(F) US Constitution, Fifth Amendment and Eighth Amendment. In particular, the liberty of the Fifth Amendment should include the right for native Taiwanese persons to obtain internationally recognized travel documents issued by a sovereign nation -- the United States of America. To leave the native Taiwanese people in a condition of statelessness is a serious violation of numerous international covenants and declarations on human rights, as well as being in violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment",

(G) Official US Executive Branch conclusions regarding Taiwan, as collected in the "Foreign Relations of the United States" series, see http://www.civil-taiwan.org/frus-data.htm and which have never recognized the Republic of China as having sovereignty over Taiwan, or having any travel document issuing authority for native Taiwanese persons,

(H) The "One China Policy" of the United States, which does not recognize any entity of the name of "Republic of China" nor recognize any such entity as having legal authority to issue travel documents for native Taiwanese persons,

(I) Definitive US Presidential statements on Taiwan, as collected. See http://www.taiwanbasic.com/historical/spresident.htm , wherein there is no recognition of any entity called "Republic of China" with authority to issue travel documents to native Taiwanese persons,

(J) Treaties in Force annual publication, wherein it is clearly noted that "The United States does not recognize the Republic of China as a state or a government," and hence in its contact with the "Taiwan governing authorities" DOD officials should stress that the nomenclature of "Republic of China" cannot be used on US soil, whether in regard to official paperwork, documentation for use in immigration procedures, or any other activity,

(K) The decision in the case of Roger C. S. Lin et al. v. United States of America, wherein the judge on March 18, 2008, held that "Plaintiffs have essentially been persons without a state for almost 60 years. The last completely clear statement of authority over Taiwan came from General MacArthur in 1945. One can understand and sympathize with Plaintiffs' desire to regularize their position in the world.   . . . . . According to the Plaintiffs, the decision not to cede Formosa to China was a considered judgment . . . . the final draft of the SFPT did not transfer 'full sovereignty' in Taiwan and the Pescadores Islands from Japan to China . . . . Instead, Article 23 designated the United States as 'the principal occupying Power,' with the government of the ROC as its agent." The Court of Appeals decision of April 7, 2009, further held that "America and China's tumultuous relationship over the past sixty years has trapped the inhabitants of Taiwan in political purgatory," and was a clear admonishment to the US Executive Branch to make strenuous efforts to upgrade the human rights status of the native Taiwanese people.

It is further asserted that the Republic of China regime's announced mass naturalization of native Taiwanese persons as "Republic of China citizens" in January 1946, during a period of belligerent occupation, is a war crime. There is no statute of limitations on war crimes. Such crimes should be investigated by DOD officials.

3. IF ALLEGING CONTRACTOR FRAUD, PROVIDE THE NAME OF THE PRIMARY CONTRACTOR, SUBCONTRACTOR, TYPE OF CONTRACT, CONTRACT NUMBERS, DATE OF CONTRACT AWARD, AND NAME(S) OF AGENCY OFFICIAL(S), IF KNOWN.

N/A

4. WHEN DID THE INCIDENT OCCUR? WHEN WERE YOU MADE AWARE OF THE PROBLEM?

The gross mismanagement of Taiwanese affairs by the DOD can be traced back to Jan. 1, 1979, when the US President broke diplomatic relations with the Republic of China government in exile on Taiwan. Later that same year, the US Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA). A thorough review of DOD's relationship with Taiwan should have been conducted at that time, and the necessary adjustments made. However, no such review was done.

Such a review of the historical and legal record would clearly show that the "Republic of China" in Taiwan is (1) a subordinate occupying power under USMG, beginning Oct. 25, 1945, (2) a government in exile, beginning Dec. 10, 1949.

Not surprisingly then, neither the San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) of 1952, nor the TRA of 1979 recognize any so-called "Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA)" of a country called "Republic of China (ROC)." Nor is any authority granted for such a MOFA/ROC to issue passports to native Taiwanese persons. Therefore, the manufacture and issuance of such passports should be regarded as "international counterfeiting."

This could be further confirmed if the Sec. of Defense had commissioned a thorough overview of the subject of "A Correct Nationality Determination for native Taiwanese Persons." Relevant data and viewpoints for researching this topic are available on the following webpage http://www.taiwanbasic.com/key/dc/rcitizen6.htm

I became aware of this "Native Taiwanese Travel Document" problem in 2010, after reading an article entitled "Understanding the San Francisco Peace Treaty's Disposition of Formosa and the Pescadores," published in the Harvard Asia Quarterly, Fall 2004 edition. In fact, the issuance of travel documents (COIs) to native Taiwanese persons is the responsibility of the DOD.

5. WHERE DID THE INCIDENT TAKE PLACE?

In regard to the current complaint, I believe that the events of 1979 are very important. Specifically, the United States derecognized the Republic of China as the government of China, and fully adopted a "One China Policy," which recognizes the People's Republic of China as the sole legitimate government of China. See http://www.civil-taiwan.org/one-china.htm

Under such a premise, the legal rationale for the issuance of travel documents to native Taiwanese persons using the nomenclature of "Republic of China" should have been thoroughly reviewed. (Note: The United States has never recognized PRC sovereignty as extending over Taiwan.)

According to the research of the Taiwan Civil Government, whether considered under international law, domestic laws currently in place in Taiwan, or US constitutional law, there is no basis for regarding native Taiwanese persons as "Republic of China citizens," and hence there can be no possible legal rationale for issuance of travel documents to native Taiwanese persons under the authority of the so-called ROC regime. The Sec. of Defense should have reached such a conclusion in mid-1979, if not earlier.

I also believe that the Defense Intelligence Agency should conduct its own investigation regarding this entire matter.
   
  APPLICABILITY OF THE AMERICAN RECOVERY & REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009 ("RECOVERY ACT")
     
  Does your complaint involve reporting fraud, waste, or abuse concerning Recovery Act funds?          Recovery Act - No
  If you answered "Yes" above, then continue answering this section.  If you answered "No", then proceed to the next section.
   
  RECOVERY ACT DETAILS:
 
IF NOT APPLICABLE, SKIP THIS SECTION.

1. HOW DO YOU KNOW YOUR COMPLAINT INVOLVES RECOVERY ACT FUNDS? 2. LIST THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DoD) OFFICE OR ENTITY THAT AWARDED, DISTRIBUTED, OR ADMINISTERED THE FUNDS IN QUESTION. 3. LIST THE GRANT, CONTRACT, LOAN, OR OTHER NUMBER (INCLUDE A DESCRIPTION). 4. LIST ANY OTHER ENTITIES YOU HAVE NOTIFIED ABOUT THE INCIDENT (FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL). 5. WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION: HAVE YOU BEEN DISCHARGED, DEMOTED, OR OTHERWISE REPRISED AGAINST BECAUSE YOU DISCLOSED THIS ALLEGED MISCONDUCT? IF YOUR ANSWER IS "YES" THEN PLEASE VISIT OUR REPRISALS COMPLAINT PAGE AND USE THE APPROPRIATE REPRISAL FORM. DO NOT USE THIS FORM, AS WE REQUIRE THAT YOU PROVIDE US WITH DIFFERENT INFORMATION, WHICH IS NOT PRESENTED ON THIS FORM.
   
  WHAT DO YOU WANT THE DEFENSE HOTLINE TO DO?
 
BRIEFLY SUMMARIZE HOW YOU BELIEVE OUR OFFICE CAN ASSIST YOU REGARDING YOUR MATTER.

(1) We humbly request that the Sec. of Defense invoke the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act and establish a procedure (including the drafting of relevant application forms) for the processing of native Taiwanese persons' applications for Certificates of Identity (COIs).

For example, see 8 CFR 223.1(b) dealing with Travel Documents and stateless persons and the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless persons (1954). Also please review the procedures which were put in place for issuance of COIs to native inhabitants of the Ryukyu Islands during the period of USMG administration from the mid-1940s until 1972.

It is hereby re-emphasized that the United States military authorities (i.e. Dept. of Defense) are definitely in a position to exercise the right to issue these COIs. United States Military Government administration of the Ryukyu islands as well as "Formosa and the Pescadores" (aka "Taiwan") are both stipulated under Article 4(b) of the San Francisco Peace Treaty of April 28, 1952. The human rights clause of the Taiwan Relations Act is also worthy of attention.

Under all relevant legal and historical precedent, the issuance of these COIs is under the authority of the Sec. of Defense. It is not a matter which falls under the jurisdiction of the US Dept. of State.

Our organization is willing and able to provide additional supporting documentation for the review of DOD officials, or provide written answers to any relevant questions, as desired.

(2) Alternatively, if the Sec. of Defense is not willing to establish a procedure for the processing of native Taiwanese persons' applications for Certificates of Identity (COIs), we humbly request that, in response to the 27-page legal document submitted in March 2012, the Sec. of Defense issue a formal letter of refusal to our attorney, while providing all relevant reasoning and rationale from the DOD perspective.

At that time we will want to have a conference with our attorney and explore what additional avenues of legal recourse are available to native Taiwanese people for obtaining some proper form of travel documents.
   
 PART III - OTHER ACTIONS YOU ARE TAKING
Please indicate in this section if you have filed your complaint with any other office, to include other Inspector General offices, and your Congressperson.  If you have contacted other entities, clearly identify the agency, office, or command, and provide your understanding of the current status of your matter.  If you have received any responses from those office(s), provide our office with a copy. 

I have additionally reported this matter via other channels:
X
Yes
No
I have received responses or results from those offices:
 Yes X No



IF YOU REPORTED YOUR MATTER TO OTHER CHANNELS, PLEASE IDENTIFY THE AGENCY, COMMAND, CONGRESSPERSON, OR OTHER OFFICE(S) AND PROVIDE THE CURRENT STATUS.

RE: Issuance of Certificates of Identity to native Taiwanese people

In early 2013, my organization I placed a half-page advertorial in the Washington Post (date: Jan. 21, 2013), requesting that the Dept. of Defense pay attention to this matter. No response has been received to date.

In early 2012, my organization hired an attorney in Washington D.C., Dr. Jonathan Levy, to write up a complete legal application/petition regarding this matter. This was completed in mid-March. Based on the Ryukyu island precedent, Dr. Levy determined that the correct US government agency to deal with our application for Certificates of Identity is the Office of the Sec. of Defense, Dept. of Defense.

Accordingly, our attorney submitted the relevant paperwork to DOD. Examination of the certified mail postal receipt reveals that this 27-page legal document was received by the Office of Leon Panetta at the Dept. of Defense on March 22, 2012. No response has been received to date.

Dr. Jonathan Levy further submitted a letter (date: July 9, 2012) to the Sec. of Defense requesting an update on the status of this petition. No response has been received to date.

The Taiwan Civil Government was founded on Feb. 2, 2008. Since that time we have sent an average of three to four letters per year to the Dept. of State (DOS) making recommendations and asking for clarifications regarding DOS's handling of the Taiwan question, including the problem of the determination of correct travel documents for native Taiwanese people. At various times, our letters have been addressed to the Secretary of State, the Office of Taiwan Coordination, and the DOS Legal Advisor. No response to our letters has ever been received from anyone at DOS.

In the past two years, we have also written letters to the following agencies making recommendations regarding the status of "Republic of China passports" under US law and asking for clarifications on the proper handling of travel documents for native Taiwanese persons.

Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
National Security Council
c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500 USA

Director
Central Intelligence Agency
Washington, D.C. 20505 USA

Janet Napolitano, Secretary
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C. 20528 USA

Alejandro Mayorkas, Director
U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services
111 Massachusetts Ave. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20529-2260 USA

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500 USA

Director
American Institute in Taiwan
No. 7, Lane 134, Hsin Yi Road, Sec. 3,
Taipei, Taiwan 106

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General of the United States
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001 USA

One response was received. This was a July 31, 2012, reply from Mary Ellen Warlow, Director, Office of International Affairs, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Criminal Division. The content was as follows: "Thank you for your letter of April 28, 2012, sharing your views on the legal status of Taiwan. We have taken note of these views and have forwarded your letter to the Department of State, which is responsible for the foreign affairs of the United States."

No further follow-up response from the Dept. of State was received.

Recently, we composed a 5-page letter dated Feb. 6, 2013, and mailed to the U.S. Customs & Border Protection. That letter is available in pdf format for reference. See http://www.taiwanbasic.com/military/cbp/cbp-lett2.pdf

No response has been received to date.

IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED RESPONSES FROM OTHER OFFICE(S) REGARDING YOUR MATTER, BRIEFLY SUMMARIZE WHAT RESULTS WERE COMMUNICATED TO YOU, AND PROVIDE OUR OFFICE WITH COPIES OF THOSE CORRESPONDENCES.

Other than the July 31, 2012, letter from the U.S. Dept. of Justice, as mentioned above, no responses have been received.

 
   
 PART IV - CERTIFICATIONS
Please indicate your responses to the certifications below.  If you have any questions about what these certifications mean, do not hesitate to contact the Defense Hotline at 1-800-424-9098 or via e-mail at: hotline@dodig.mil. 
 
X I certify that all of the statements made in this complaint are true, complete, and correct, to the best of my knowledge.  I understand that a false statement or concealment of a material fact is a criminal offense (18 U.S.C. § 1001; Inspector General Act of 1978, As Amended, §7).
   
X I have provided my election concerning my filing status in Part I of this form (Consent to Disclosure, Non-Consent to Disclosure, or Anonymous).  If I did not provide my disclosure election, I understand that this will cause a delay in the processing of my complaint.  I further understand that if I have elected either confidential or anonymous status, it may impact the ability of the Defense Hotline to either conduct an inquiry, if warranted, and/or to appropriately address my issue(s).  I also understand that if I elect anonymity, without providing any contact information, I will be unable to request confirmation of receipt of this complaint to the Defense Hotline, or to receive advisements as to open or closed status.
   
X

I understand that if the Director, Defense Hotline determines the allegation(s) in my complaint cannot be investigated without disclosing my identity on a need-to-know-basis to organizations outside the Defense Hotline, my lack of consent may prevent further action from being taken on my complaint.  I further understand that even if I elect confidential status, my identity may be disclosed, if required by applicable legal authority, or the Director, Defense Hotline, determines that such disclosure is otherwise unavoidable.
 
 
   
 PART V - DOCUMENT UPLOADS & SUBMITTAL
If you have supporting documentation that you wish to provide with this complaint form, please use the 'Upload Document' field below.  Do not send classified documents using this unclassified internet system.  We recommend that you scan your documents together into one electronic file, not to exceed 5 MB in file memory size.  Please coordinate with our office by calling 1-800-424-9098 if you wish to send a larger file or additional documents.
 
Uploaded Document:   attachment-DOD.doc       
 
This is a Department of Defense Inspector General (DoDIG) document and may contain information that could identify an Inspector General (IG) source.  The identity of an IG source must be protected.  Access to this document is limited to persons with a need-to-know for the purpose of providing a response to the DoD IG.  Do not release, reproduce, or disseminate this document (in whole or in part) outside DoD without the prior written approval of the DoD IG or designee.  Do not permit subjects, witnesses, or others to receive, review, or make copies of this document.
THIS SITE IS INTENDED FOR REPORTING FRAUD, WASTE, AND ABUSE COMPLAINTS
INVOLVING UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION