DoD IG Evaluation of DoD's Action Regarding UAPs

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Article:
MEMORANDUM FOR DISTRIBUTION

SUBJECT: Evaluation of the DoD’s Actions Regarding the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (Project No. D2021-DEV0SN-0116.000)

We plan to begin the subject evaluation in May 2021. The objective of this evaluation is to determine the extent to which the DoD has taken actions regarding Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP). We may revise the objective as the evaluation proceeds, and we will consider suggestions from management for additional or revised objectives.

We will perform the evaluation at the Offices of the Secretary of Defense, Military Services, Combatant Commands, Combat Support Agencies, Defense Agencies, and the Military Criminal Investigative Organizations. We may identify additional locations during the evaluation.

Please provide us with a point of contact for the evaluation within 5 days of the date of this memorandum. The point of contact should be a Government employee or Military Service Member—a GS-15, pay band equivalent, or the military equivalent. Send the contact’s name, title, grade/pay band, phone number, and e-mail address to [REDACTED]

You can obtain information about the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General from DoD Directive 5106.01, “Inspector General of the Department of Defense (IG DoD),” April 20, 2012, as amended; and DoD Instruction 7050.03, “Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense Access to Records and Information,” March 22, 2013. Our website is www.dodig.mil.


I've bolded the sections of the above that are not boilerplate for other evaluation announcements. The only two such things are the objective line and the list of offices at which the evaluation is to be performed.

Compare with another evaluation:
https://media.defense.gov/2021/Mar/03/2002592358/-1/-1/1/D2021-DEV0SN-0095.000_REDACTED.PDF
Objective: "The objective of this evaluation is to determine the extent to which DoD Program Managers for mission critical aircraft are planning and conducting high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) life cycle testing in accordance with DoD Instruction 3150.09"
Offices: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, and selected Military Service program management offices.

So it seems that the list of offices is a significant clue to the nature of the evaluation. I think of particular interest is the inclusion in the UAP evaluation of "Military Criminal Investigative Organizations"

Possibly also relevant is the distribution list:
DISTRIBUTION:

SECRETARIES OF THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS
CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING
UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY
COMMANDER, U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND
COMMANDER, U.S. NORTHERN COMMAND
COMMANDER, U.S. SPECIAL OPERATIONS
COMMAND DIRECTOR, DEFENSE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY
DIRECTOR, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
DIRECTOR, DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY
DIRECTOR, MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL GEOSPATIAL-INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
DIRECTOR, NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE
DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY/CENTRAL SECURITY SERVICE
DIRECTOR, DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
AUDITOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
AUDITOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
AUDITOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
Content from External Source
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
@Mick West


Do you think that "Military Criminal Investigative Organizations" is in there in relation to the leaks?

Looking up other times "Military Criminal Investigation" was mentioned in DoD-IG evaluation accouncements, this seems be the only one that has it as an office location where the subject of the investigation is not that office.
https://www.dodig.mil/reports.html/Category/16446/?Search=Military+AND+Criminal+AND+Investigative

Which kind of suggests they are evaluating if something illegal was done.
 

gtoffo

Active Member
Wow.....interesting times. Is this basically the beginning of the famous UAPTF report that should be released in June?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
"complaints from congressional leadership" - what does that mean? Jim Clyburn? Steny Hoyer? Nancy Pelosi? Some committee? Minority leaders?
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
It could be Rubio, he's been talking about it lately. (although this Poitico article says Chris Mellon is an advisor to the the task force.. which would explain why the military agencies aren't keen on sharing info with the task force. There is a good chance Mellon is the one leaking all this classified information, in my opinion)

March 25
Article:
Rubio also held up the prospect that agencies will need more time to complete the report. "I'm not sure they are going to come in on time," he said. "I'm not sure by June 1 they have reached a hard conclusion about what they are dealing with and there may be more questions, or new questions, than full answers ..."
 

gtoffo

Active Member
"complaints from congressional leadership" - what does that mean? Jim Clyburn? Steny Hoyer? Nancy Pelosi? Some committee? Minority leaders?
According to the debrief:
While the Senate Select Intelligence Committee is responsible for directing June’s highly anticipated Advanced Aerial Threats Report, sources say it was representatives of the Senate Armed Services Committee who prodded the Inspector General Office’s recent involvement. The IG Office did not immediately respond to questions by The Debrief regarding the inspiration behind the evaluation.

The IG Office says the current probe of the DoD’s handling of encounters with unidentified aerial phenomena is not an investigation into alleged criminal or administrative violations. Instead, the mission of the evaluation is to “promote the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of DoD programs and operations.”

The Senate Armed Services Committee would mean:

Jack Reed (D - RI)
Chairman

Majority
Shaheen, Jeanne (D - NH)
Gillibrand, Kirsten E. (D - NY)
Blumenthal, Richard (D - CT)
Hirono, Mazie K. (D - HI)
Kaine, Tim (D - VA)
King, Angus (I - ME)
Warren, Elizabeth (D - MA)
Peters, Gary C. (D - MI)
Manchin III, Joe (D - WV)
Duckworth, Tammy (D - IL)
Rosen, Jacky (D - NV)
Kelly, Mark (D - AZ)

James Inhofe (R - OK)
Ranking Member

Minority
Wicker, Roger F. (R - MS)
Fischer, Deb (R - NE)
Cotton, Tom (R - AR)
Rounds, Mike (R - SD)
Ernst, Joni (R - IA)
Tillis, Thom (R - NC)
Sullivan, Dan (R - AK)
Cramer, Kevin (R - ND)
Scott, Rick (R - FL)
Blackburn, Marsha (R - TN)
Hawley, Josh (R - MO)
Tuberville, Tommy (R - AL)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
2021-05-04_14-55-17.jpg

This is a comparison of the UAP memo against a similar memo. The yellow is matching boilerplate.
 

Alphadunk

Active Member
(although this Poitico article says Chris Mellon is an advisor to the the task force.. which would explain why the military agencies aren't keen on sharing info with the task force. There is a good chance Mellon is the one leaking all this classified information, in my opinion)

What classified information has been leaked?
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
What on earth does this mean?

"The IG Office says the current probe of the DoD’s handling of encounters with unidentified aerial phenomena is not an investigation into alleged criminal or administrative violations. Instead, the mission of the evaluation is to “promote the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of DoD programs and operations.
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
What on earth does this mean?

"The IG Office says the current probe of the DoD’s handling of encounters with unidentified aerial phenomena is not an investigation into alleged criminal or administrative violations. Instead, the mission of the evaluation is to “promote the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of DoD programs and operations.
That reads as if they were looking into duplication of efforts and streamlining procedures, or perhaps whether too little, or too much, money and energy is being expended on this -- or on aspects fof this not important to DoD's overall mission.
 

food-creature

New Member
"The IG Office says the current probe of the DoD’s handling of encounters with unidentified aerial phenomena is not an investigation into alleged criminal or administrative violations. Instead, the mission of the evaluation is to “promote the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of DoD programs and operations.
Sounds like they're just generally evaluating how the DoD is handling reports, in terms of effectiveness (are they dismissing or discarding things that could warrant further attention) vs. efficiency (are they wasting time + money agonizing over grainy pictures etc)
 

gtoffo

Active Member
That reads as if they were looking into duplication of efforts and streamlining procedures, or perhaps whether too little, or too much, money and energy is being expended on this -- or on aspects fof this not important to DoD's overall mission.
Agree.

Too much money is unlikely since the budgets disclosed are infinitesimal for the DoD (AATIP 22 mil for example).

Also there are claims by people like Elizondo and Mellon of branches failing to collaborate effectively, withholding information from one another and stonewalling the UAPTF.

This is not an "investigation" but an "evaluation" so they are not looking into "illegal activity".
 

DebunkMee

New Member
This reads like a routine evaluation rather than something spurred on spontaneously. They were tasked with investigating UAPs through the UAPTF, and now they're internally evaluating the work done so far.
 

Alphadunk

Active Member
From a security standpoint it makes sense to evaluate whether or not various branches are communicating effectively and transparently especially when the subject is rather fringe or taboo. I'm not reading too much into this, seems rather mundane.
 
For a few services (/some of) their counterintelligence components fall within 'investigative' entities. Covering these matters would definitely have a counterintelligence aspect so the "Military Criminal Investigative Organizations" could be in regards to those.
 
Interesting ( and swift ) FOIA result from John Greenewald Jnr today with regard to this. Despite rumours online of this being initiated by actions of Congress members, the response he received suggests this was not the case, as no correspondence was found.

Copy of the letter he received is on his site, obviously.

Edit: Apologies for not including a link or source information, am still getting used to the rules of this site, and only didn't include links to avoid copyright breaches or link breaches. Will not make the same mistake again and included a link to the letter in my post below ( which may have been deleted but has been included by someone else, sorry everyone, won't do it again).
 
Last edited:

gtoffo

Active Member
Interesting ( and swift ) FOIA result from John Greenewald Jnr today with regard to this. Despite rumours online of this being initiated by actions of Congress members, the response he received suggests this was not the case, as no correspondence was found.

Copy of the letter he received is on his site, obviously.
Here is the source: https://www.theblackvault.com/docum...ress-that-initiated-their-evaluation-on-uaps/
5-13-2021-3-30-46-PM.png
Interesting. Although FOIAs are usually only relevant if they do find something. Not the other way around since so many exceptions/loopholes exist.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Kavkaz1

New Member
Basically this means that the origin of this investigation isnt congressional, yes?

I dont think this has any major implications on what it means or why it's happening. The stated purpose is nonetheless an internal investigation of the existing work done on UAPs and all the stuff we mentioned above. Unless they suspect foul play, wasted money, or something else.
 
Basically this means that the origin of this investigation isnt congressional, yes?

I dont think this has any major implications on what it means or why it's happening. The stated purpose is nonetheless an internal investigation of the existing work done on UAPs and all the stuff we mentioned above. Unless they suspect foul play, wasted money, or something else.

One can only hope that an investigation involving simple facts and stopping any ridiculous rumour mongering might result. Doubt it though. I have no knowledge of how NDAs affect how you present a "lack of information" to the public as an ex-employee, but do wonder if a "professional standards" implication might be present for some individuals.
 
Top