Summary
A heavily redacted Department of Defense Office of Inspector General (DoD OIG) report, released January 7, 2026 via FOIA by the-black-vault, documents a UAP-related whistleblower reprisal investigation involving security clearance revocation that was closed in February 2025. The complainant’s identity is redacted, but the timeline, subject matter, and document structure strongly overlap with david-grusch’s publicly documented filings with the Intelligence Community Inspector General. The DoD OIG found the complainant made four protected disclosures but concluded the clearance revocation was not caused by those disclosures, citing instead a “pattern of misconduct.” The complainant’s TS/SCI clearance was reinstated on appeal by a Personnel Security Appeals Board (PSAB) on January 10, 2023, one day after the hearing, and the complainant returned to work. Internal communications reveal optics-based hesitation by officials, including an explicit “stand down” directive and concern the timing would look “terrible.”
Key Claims
- The DoD OIG found four protected disclosures, including one to the DoD OIG itself; other recipients are redacted. (DoD OIG report)
- The Consolidated Adjudications Facility (CAF) issued a Letter of Intent to revoke access on August 29, 2022; final revocation signed December 12, 2022. (DoD OIG report)
- The OIG concluded the protected disclosures were NOT a contributing factor; “clear and convincing evidence” showed the same action would have been taken regardless. (DoD OIG report)
- The basis for revocation was a “pattern of misconduct” evaluated under DoDM 5200.02 adjudicative standards. (DoD OIG report)
- Internal CAF communications in September 2022 questioned whether the complainant had “blown any whistle.” (DoD OIG report)
- Officials issued a “stand down” directive before sending the revocation letter, explicitly citing optics concerns. (DoD OIG report)
- The PSAB unanimously voted to reinstate the complainant’s TS/SCI on January 10, 2023, one day after the hearing, citing “compelling” mitigation — not whistleblower considerations. (DoD OIG report)
- The FOIA response withheld an additional 44 pages in coordination with odni, citing intelligence sources/methods and privacy exemptions. (DoD OIG release letter)
- Only one case responded to the FOIA request, suggesting this is likely Grusch’s case; a signature-block comparison between the redacted OIG complaint and Grusch’s unredacted ICIG filing suggests the same law firm drafted both. (John Greenewald / The Black Vault)
Notable Quotes
“The Complainant’s protected disclosures were not a contributing factor in the CAF’s initial intent to revoke the Complainant’s eligibility for access to classified information.” — DoD OIG report
“[T]he person was claiming whistleblower status, and [a redacted official] didn’t want the optics to be terrible.” — DoD OIG report, summarizing internal communications
“Where is the whistleblowing? Is there more out there that we don’t know about?” — CAF personnel, September 29, 2022 (as recounted in DoD OIG report)