The term IG is thrown around like a football. Should we use the IG like the boogeyman, to help improve orgs or both? What's your IG story?

COL Lee Flemming — Thu, 25 Aug 2016 02:37:35 -0400

Everyone has heard the term..."that is an IG complaint." It is almost used interchangeably with that is against regulations. What is your story and do you think that you were fairly treated?

Response by Maj John Bell made Aug 25 at 2016 4:49 AM

Maj John Bell — Thu, 25 Aug 2016 04:49:14 -0400

2ndBn 4thMarines participated in Operation Desert Storm and returned to CONUS. Instead of the normal 18 months before MEU(SOC) workups. 2/4 went immediately into workups and deployed to the Med six months later. During the return Translant, the command was notified that it would go through a Commanding General Inspection (CGI) Operational Readiness Inspection (ORI) and Consolidated Logistics Inspection (CLI) 90 days after returning to CONUS. ORI’s and CLI's normally happen shortly prior to deployment.

The inspections went well, but the S-1 and S-4 inspections could have gone better. But nobody was getting fired. I was the S-3A. At the end of the debrief, the Division CG asked how we felt about the CGI process. The BnXO knew I was no fan of the CGI or an after deployment ORI, when most of the battalion took 14-21 days leave because they hadn’t had any in over two years. Everyone was dead silent. The BnXO got caught motioning me to “zip it.”

The CG asked what I had to say. The short version:
__There is no CGI or ORI staff on a Marine Division’s TO&E.
__The staff is either on permanent loan (the Senior functional area NCO, SNCO, WO, and CWO) from the operational regiments, battalions, and independent companies, Or TAD from the same units except the unit being inspected.
__Because of the previous item; the inspected Unit carries out day-to-day operations without the experience and expertise of its duty experts.
__The CGI inspects a functional area, finds a handful of mistakes, declares it a finding and does nothing to find additional errors or fix the errors it found.
__The command did not undergo its ORI prior to deployment for Desert Shield and Desert Storm because it was going to war. It didn’t go through it normal pre-deployment ORI before the Med float because the Division was busy. What is the point of an ORI when 3/4 of the officers and 1/3 of the enlisted Marines will not be part of the unit in 3 months?

The CG said nothing and stared at me for at least 15 minutes. Witnesses tell me it was really far less than 10 seconds. He turned to the BnCO, and asked what my billet was. The BnCO told him I was the S-3A. The CG then told the CO, XO, and S-3 to join him in the CO’s office. He told the CO that he could dismiss the rest of us. The XO lingered long enough to tell me to “stand fast.”

The rest of the battalion was secured for a 72, when the XO stuck his head in the conference room and said “No questions! Tomorrow you will report to the Division Staff Secretary at 0930. Go home until then.”
The next day the Staff Secretary interviewed me a few minutes, then disappeared. The Assistant Division Commander did the same. "The CG, the DCS for Readiness, and I have interviewed every reporting senior and reviewing officer you've had in the Marines."

As a result I was now the Assistant DCS for Readiness, and I had 90 days to complete a draft for staffing of the new DivO on CGI’s, and another 90 days after that to complete a draft for staffing of the new DivO on ORI’s. The CG stepped in and said “I hope you have the brass you think you do Captain.”

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 25 at 2016 7:22 AM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 25 Aug 2016 07:22:40 -0400

Had a 2 week FTX with no showers but our co and LTs were going back and forth to get showers and food. Not right at all! IG said that they have meetings sometimes during the FTX And they can't be dirty ! But one LT got a shower and cake because it was her birthday while a SPC didnt get anything for his. in my opinion, IG doesn't really help

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 25 at 2016 7:47 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 25 Aug 2016 07:47:26 -0400

I do believe that it gets thrown around too much. This thread already has an example of a ridiculous IG complaint. You want to be treated like an officer? Become an officer then.

I have filed an IG complaint over what I considered to be an egregious safety issue. And this coming from a guy whose buddies joke about why I still have all my limbs. Or haven't cut my fingers off yet.

I just got a letter back stating that I couldn't disclose anything. Don't know if that's the standard procedure or not, don't know whether anything came of it or not. There's slightly more to it than this, but in the interest of complying with the instructions, I'm not posting it online.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 25 at 2016 8:56 AM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 25 Aug 2016 08:56:07 -0400

I am currently in the MEB process for knee injuries. The one and only time I had to get IG involved was trying to get my jump stats terminated. I had been on temp profile for 14 months before it was finally dropped. I submitted the packet three times. Twice it stopped at the company level. Unit leadership said I needed a medical reason or recommendation to terminate. They finally sent it up without a medical reason or recommendation. S1 kicked it back stating the same reason. This is not true. You can submit a packet as long as you complete your 36 month obligation. I had been on status for 98 months. S1 told my OPS rep the BC had a policy letter in place stating he would not sign that type of packet without a medical recommendation. They could not provide said policy letter and still wouldn't take my packet. I informed my PSG who suggested going to IG. When I told them about the situation, they called S1 and asked about the policy letter. There was a long pause. IG rep told S1 he was sending me back with my packet and to process it.

All said and done I had to pay back $1,950 because not only would my unit and S1 not process my packet, my unit also never put my name on the stop pay memo for jump pay. Not a big deal cause I knew not to spend it. It still should not have come to getting IG involved.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 25 at 2016 9:00 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 25 Aug 2016 09:00:33 -0400

The Inspector General's office is there for one specific capacity: to be the subject matter experts for regulations. They advise and assist commands in matters where regulation can be open to interpretation and to conduct investigations when a regulation is not being adhered to. They are not to voice complaints on food in the chow hall or how the toilet paper in the field isn't soft enough. The IG on every post I've been to has been very helpful and receptive and will come and give capabilities and limitations briefings for anyone who requests one.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Aug 25 at 2016 10:15 AM

CAPT Kevin B. — Thu, 25 Aug 2016 10:15:46 -0400

When I was on the Public Works staff at MCAS El Toro (also had Tustin) the Marine IG descended on us. The lead was a proverbial Alpha Hotel who wanted to see the records, processes, etc. to demonstrate compliance with Marine Corps policy and instructions. OK. Problem was we were a Navy Public Works organization following Navy policies and instructions with a letter signed by the CMC a number of years prior directing that method. It seems the Navy at the time knew a lot more about running stuff that supported air operations. I showed him the letter and tried to show him equivalents for the critical stuff, be he'd have nothing of it. His debriefing in front of the Base Commander (2 Star) lambasted the whole organization. As we gave the big boss a heads up on what was going on, he suitably expressed his dismay on how the IG could come out so unprepared to conduct a proper inspection and advised they not come back until they got squared away. Apparently he called back to the Annex and gave them a heads up about their problem child. We found out later that the IG was aware of the policy but didn't want to spend the time or resources to figure out the Navy PW system. They never floated the notion to get an assist and have some Navy support to help them inspect that area. HQ types are notorious for missing the blinding flash of the obvious stuff.

That was the first time in my career I was responsible for a significant thing the IG blasted but the Flag stood up for us.

Response by Lt Col Jim Coe made Aug 25 at 2016 11:07 AM

Lt Col Jim Coe — Thu, 25 Aug 2016 11:07:54 -0400

I worked in the same Directorate as the IG at Military Airlift Command a lifetime ago. IG had two divisions, inspections and complaints. The inspections folks did management effectiveness inspections (MEI). The MEIs focused on how well the organization was managed IAW the regulations. Most of the inspectors were true experts in their specialty and many had command experience. Closest thing in private sector is an audit where auditors look at your business practices and tell you what's costing you too much money or increasing risk. The complaints division investigated IG complaints. Mostly fraud, waste, and abuse type stuff. This was before EO/EEO officers, so many of the complaints involved discrimination and harassment. They would make recommendations to the MAC commander (O-10).

Later as an Army Civilian, conducted an investigation the Command IG. They didn't have manpower to investigate every complaint (1 O-5, 1 E-9, and 1 GS11), so after preliminary screening, they gave the investigation task to a senior officer or civilian who conducted an inquiry and reported back to the IG. Mine was about potential fraud on a travel claim. Turned out to be a mistake that the employee corrected immediately by revising the voucher in DTS and sending the Government a check for the overpayment of less than $100. Process problem was the approving authority who should have caught the error and not approved the travel voucher in the first place. Whole thing was anticlimactic. Nothing happened to anybody involved.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Aug 25 at 2016 11:44 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Thu, 25 Aug 2016 11:44:37 -0400

No examples given, but I do believe they serve a definite beneficial function. The problem is it seems that no one takes action on the faults and issues uncovered. If they do, they are in line for seeking other employment. IMO, an action plan should be mandated and tracked for anything they find.

Response by SGT William Howell made Aug 25 at 2016 12:46 PM

SGT William Howell — Thu, 25 Aug 2016 12:46:31 -0400

The only times (2) that I had anything worthy of the IG I just called my Congressman. Both issues were resolved in less than a week because the command knew they were wrong and they did not want a congressional review. If an IG complaint will make a commander pucker a congressional investigation will make him suck up the sheets and pass out. Everyone has the right to speak to their congressman.

Either way you better have your ducks in a row. By that I mean documentation. You got to have a paper trail that supports your claim. Get sworn witness statements in writing before you submit anything. People tend to have a different recollection when an inspector starts asking questions.

Response by CMSgt Dennis Heath made Aug 25 at 2016 12:52 PM

CMSgt Dennis Heath — Thu, 25 Aug 2016 12:52:35 -0400

In my only experience involving the IG, I formally reported alleged abuse of authority by an officer in my chain of command in 1984. Unfortunately for me, the IG (the deputy base commander) was a good friend of that officer. As you might imagine, it didn't turn out well for me. However, as you can see, the incident didn't hold me back. The officer in question did not fare as well. Lesson...stay true, keep your integrity, and press on. Keeping silent is collusion at the worst, and cowardice at the least. Say something! Do something!

Response by SSG Keith Cashion made Aug 25 at 2016 2:03 PM

SSG Keith Cashion — Thu, 25 Aug 2016 14:03:43 -0400

The IG office here on Ft. Carson are on each others speed dial. Not so much about complaints, but questions the Soldiers go to about process and regulatory requirement for my area. As someone in this thread stated...know your Regs and have your ducks in a row.

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Aug 25 at 2016 3:35 PM

CPT Pedro Meza — Thu, 25 Aug 2016 15:35:32 -0400

In 2014 I had to use the IG card after ARMY an civilian tech and ARMY E-6 tech attempted to get me to agree to leave the service for being medically unfit while my Med Board packet was lost; they lost it. Had to mention that I was calling the IG after talking to them. My packet was soon found and process after getting lost for the third time in three years.

Response by LTC Sonya Friday made Aug 25 at 2016 5:33 PM

LTC Sonya Friday — Thu, 25 Aug 2016 17:33:14 -0400

Being a former IG, I don't think we need to throw around the word IG like its the boogieman but we should remember what the purpose of an IG is. Commanders at all levels should have some type of command inspection program to ensure subordinate units are in compliance will all policy's and regulations. I was proud to be an IG and happy that I was able to help those who made complaints. However, I do remember very early in my career the thought of an IG inspection caused fear and ruined careers. I understand that some IG offices have changed but others have not which is sad. At the end of the day the IG is there to be unbiased and investigate the complaint and make a recommendation based off of facts with backup documentation.

Response by SPC Erich Guenther made Aug 29 at 2016 1:15 AM

SPC Erich Guenther — Mon, 29 Aug 2016 01:15:54 -0400

Never had to use IG, the Chain of Command always worked for me. Two times I had to go outside the chain of command, one procedural (Army Board of Military Corrections....rank for college mistake made at MEPS) and the second went direct to the retired 2 or 3 star in charge of AUSA (Membership drive getting out of hand). Both worked just fine without bothering IG. I write pretty persuasively though and generally have found 98% of people on the face of the Earth reasonable and willing to listen and work something out as long as you know how to approach them.

Response by MAJ Eric Greek made Apr 11 at 2019 3:10 PM

MAJ Eric Greek — Thu, 11 Apr 2019 15:10:24 -0400

The Inspector General is a joke. They allowed an estranged former spouse to utilize the 'spousal support' complaint process to make dozens of allegations. The DAIG just dumped these complaints on various commanders who then spoke to my former spouse who alleged all kinds of antics that sparked investigations. It did not matter that I was clearly providing all mandated support. The DAIG continued this behavior even after securing a no contact order. It continued the behavior even after I went to Congress multiple times. The DAIG continued this even after I retired and was having me pulled out of Ivy League graduate classes to respond to knew allegations. The behavior continued even after I hired a Civilian attorney and had to forcefully commanded by my attorney to cease further retaliatory actions.

The DAIG then claimed there was no records, requiring another Congressional Inquiry before they coughed up the records to my attorney six years after claiming these records were just a few weeks away from delivery.

That is what I have had to go through to stop the DAIG from facilitating criminal harassment by a former spouse.

Then there was 2012 in Afghanistan. Not only was Brigadier General SinClair reduced to LTC for his misconduct, but the Inspector General was very much part of the problem. I watched a good friend report a portion of this misconduct only to have the IG run directly to the General and share the complaint with then General SinClair. The misbehavior in the 82nd was so toxic and dysfunctional, having been divided into cliques that were either for or against the home team, that it fully undermined combat operations in RC-S.

The only thing I have seen the IG do is provide cover for senior officers engaged in misconduct. I have never seen the IG resolve a complaint above the company grade successfully or based on facts of evidence. That may be because the Military IG has the lowest threshold for rejection, requiring mere possibility to be exonerating. Ergo, it MOST likely, indeed provably true, that a Soldier, Sailor, Marine, or Airman was retaliated against (hence the 3/4 of sexual assault claimants who report retaliation), but all the offending officers have to say, "They were just weak performers." It's justified by their subsequent ratings that give a complainant poor marks.

If you are in the military and have a real problem, there is only one method that will bring redress - write your Congressman. Make sure its important enough to get into a fight over, because the Services will come after you (and the IG will do nothing to protect you). That is the case even when your Soldiers are getting blown up and torn to shreds due to sustained misconduct and mismanagement. It doesn't get much more important than that, and the DAIG has proven time and time again that it is no advocate for Soldiers.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 30 at 2021 5:32 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 30 Oct 2021 17:32:54 -0400

I am active duty navy and I have been dealing with WBR for over a year now, for filing a IG complaint that DOD and NAVY IG has stated that my complaints warrant a full investigation, the retaliation have only gotten worse, there is no WBR protection.