Summary

This report responds to congressional concerns about two primary responsibilities of the Navy's Inspector General (IG) organization--resolving complaints received from various sources and inspecting Navy units. The perceived integrity, timeliness, and quality of the complaint process is critical to its success. If persons have doubts about the credibility or effectiveness of the complaint process, they may not report instances of waste or mismanagement. As a result, Congress, the Defense Department (DOD), and the public cannot be sure that allegations are properly examined to minimize waste, mismanagement, and improper activities within the Navy. Navy IG inspections are important because they help to ensure the readiness, effectiveness, and efficiency of Navy commands and provide an assessment of the quantity, quality, and management of resources. The Navy IG needs to ensure that established inspection procedures are adhered to and complaint results are used in planning inspections. The Navy IG could also better inform Congress and DOD by more widely distributing inspection results. Also, the Navy IG could benefit from a comprehensive external review by the DOD IG.

GAO found that: (1) Navy IG investigation and inspection practices need to be strengthened; (2) for many cases, the Navy IG did not assign an independent investigator or complete investigative documentation, did not timely or fully investigate, and failed to follow complainant confidentiality procedures; (3) the Department of Defense (DOD) and Congress cannot be assured that the Navy IG is properly investigating allegations of waste, mismanagement, or improper Navy personnel actions; (4) the Navy IG plans to develop a detailed investigation manual and training course for its investigators to strengthen their investigations; (5) systematic inspection weaknesses may not have been identified because the Navy IG did not inspect several major commands within the Navy's established 3-year cycle and IG of these major commands did not identify trends in inspection results; (6) although the Navy IG has addressed significant economy, efficiency, and effectiveness issues, it has not reported its findings or recommendations to Congress or DOD so that they can fulfill their oversight and policy responsibilities; (7) the DOD IG has not conducted a comprehensive oversight review of Navy IG inspection activities; and (8) an independent review of the Navy IG by an external organization could result in a more efficient use of Navy IG resources.