Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Responsive Document -CREW: DOD: Regarding Ethics Opinions Database: 5/22/2013 - Pp1-60 Crew v DoD May 2013 Release

Responsive Document -CREW: DOD: Regarding Ethics Opinions Database: 5/22/2013 - Pp1-60 Crew v DoD May 2013 Release

Ratings:
(0)
|Views: 10|Likes:
Published by CREW
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) sent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, Navy Personnel Command and Bureau of Naval Personnel, U.S. Marine Corps Headquarters, Air Force Personnel Operations Agency, and the Department of Defense.



CREW made these requests for documents to determine which generals and admirals have retired from the military and then taken jobs in the private sector as part of the “revolving door” phenomenon.



CREW filed suit in the District Court for the District of Columbia against the Department of Defense ("DOD"). CREW’s lawsuit, brought under the FOIA, was based on DOD's refusal to release any documents in its database of ethics opinions concerning post-employment ethics letters written by DOD ethics officers for senior DOD acquisition officials.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) sent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, Navy Personnel Command and Bureau of Naval Personnel, U.S. Marine Corps Headquarters, Air Force Personnel Operations Agency, and the Department of Defense.



CREW made these requests for documents to determine which generals and admirals have retired from the military and then taken jobs in the private sector as part of the “revolving door” phenomenon.



CREW filed suit in the District Court for the District of Columbia against the Department of Defense ("DOD"). CREW’s lawsuit, brought under the FOIA, was based on DOD's refusal to release any documents in its database of ethics opinions concerning post-employment ethics letters written by DOD ethics officers for senior DOD acquisition officials.

More info:

Published by: CREW on May 22, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
This book can be read on up to 6 mobile devices.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/28/2014

pdf

text

original

 
DEPARTMENT
OF THE
AIR
FORCE
AlA
FORce
OFFiCE
OF SCIENTIFIC
RESEARCH (AFOSR)
7
Mu~y2010
 
MEMORANDUM
FO~_b)_(6_)
 
~
 
_
FROM:
AFOSRlJA
875
North
Randolph
S1reel.,
Ste
325
Rm
3112
ArlingtQl1~
 
VA
22203
SUBJECT:
Request
fQt'3O-0.a.y
Letter
Applicable
to
All
I;ederal
ContactQr5
1.
Th.is
letter ispro"ide4
in
respon~
 
tcYOUt
reG'l:nt
request
fhr
ail
authoritative
lnlorpretation
ofthe
application
of
Section
423
of Title
41,
United
Statal
Cod:e
arid
os
required
under
Sectiotl847 Public
Law
110-181,
to
yonrserviceas
fl
 
oft1clal l>fDOD,
BrIefly,
4L
USC
423proh.ibit'l
certain
fo.rmeromploy~O$
 
fro.m
accept~!lg
 
COmpetll;Ution
from
8.00ntracter
for
a
period
of
:ln~
 
year
.if
tboy
sOlVed
111
certain
l')ositions
or
mlide
certaindecisions in
connection
'whh.a
OOtltmct
liwarded
to
'tbll.t
cdntiaetof.
2.
Unaer
this
statute
De&ignated
.Agoney
.8tltios OfficiaJs
and
their
et~tees
 
MVO
.the
f~gat.
 
tUithotity
to
renderauthotitative
Opiil;Ot1S'
reearoing
the
'applicability'
(ttthe
Starofetn
ll1e
aeeeptance
ofcompellsatibn
from
contractors. .
BaSed
on
the
tnfOtll1Mit)(l
1
btIve
rtlCe;ved
from
)'00,
it
is
my
opinion
that
the
statute
wO\lldnot
reliir[Qt
)'OU
trom.
acceptlrtg
compensRti~
 
from
allY
'Q9'I1\plmy.
'3.
Be
aeMsed
that
employees
bavulg
dutios 1nvolv'ng
a
ootnp&llY'
m~t:lrbe
 
dlsqualtfied
fi'Olh
aillfucb
dutiostftlel~d.ing
 
decision making.·
rel1dering
~J"
 
tee,;
m",lI.ing
l'ecommepdatioQ8;.
Itnd
·it1Q11itoring
contractOl'
ac~ivittesJ,
 
betbre
thoY'
~'8in
 
to
~
 
omp.loyme.Qt
'With.
that,09mp#ny.
4.
This opinion
Bd4re~s
 
only.
restrictions'
that
n'l4)'
app.ly
UtIf;1e.r41.
U$C
42;l.
R.e~lriet!Qn~,un4er
 
Qtl\er
l~ws
 
(e.g
.•
Uf
USC
1Q1)
have
llotl:!~t1'8ddre~sed·fn
 
~h$op"nioli.
 
]a
PlrtisgJlIl\!i,
f.g!t"WrtW·li!din
'om:SBJl"m,.I;eef
11I.est
tta.t
the
J!9St:I0verJlIO.fll
emplomen1
testtisti$';M
tfTitlOJ.8.UAjted
S~Ses!iog
 
A:m!.ilJm.!~!!JorJl..!dfm
 
JittUilQ)
mal!;
~~U!U.e!:1ii9
~8iiiL9isoopeiijiu
 
iiiiimeJii
t\if}Jlt,JiYiuauoligpDei
e.hliell,ii.JilSik
ami
of
mu:
k!lt
m:
!b9I£
It,$
J?ereltD!,g[tbt
bu
ram
for-
Eusutin
§9hec'lJk
LtXd
It
"the
Ant,;Uat
n~'utperiw!
 
s.ifSin!!l
II;
"SYS!;
·an"")
au.
to
y(),.
I
will address the
18
USC 207
pmvisions
in
8
s~p8rAtelegal
 
inemo.randum..
S.
,"lis
letter
is
provided iu
my
capacity
as
ethi~
 
cowl$clar
ROO'
is
tberet'oreadvisory
ol1ly
in
lWo6tdan~e:
 
with
S
C.F.R.
2635.,107
a.nd
4'1
U;S.C. 423
(ProeurerrMill~
 
lntegribfAct).
Ethics
officials.8Qt
on
behatfof
the
QnitedS~s,
 
and
n<lt
as
you,
persona}
representative,
There
is
no
IlttorneY"ClieJ1C.
r.elationshJp
cre4ra:d
'by
the
consultation.
If
you
or
any
reoipient
ofthi~
 
letter
has
qIJes.tioM.
NlMTdii1g
the
mformati'lJi
dis.eu$$ed·RJ\(J
the
C011chision
re.a.ehed,
please
contaet'tne
adb)(6)
I
r.b77)(6=)~=======!-_~-------'
 
rile
Basic
Research
Manager
of
the Air Force
ReSG8t'ch
Labor.tory
_._------------------_
.....
CREW v. DOD MAY2013 RELEASE 000001
 
DEPARTMENT
OF
THE
AIR
FORCE
WASHINGTON.
DC
Offtce
of
the
General
Counsel
SAF/OCA
1740 Air
Force
Pen,&gon
Washington
DC
20330·1740
~b)(6)
 
I
~b)(6)
 
pentagon.af.mil
-
Dear~L-~)_(6_)
_--J
This
is
in
resJX>hse
to
your request for
an
ethics opinion regarding
POQt~govemment
 
employment
restrictions
as
they relate
to
your
oroposed
employment
with (b)(6)
IYour
last
POSition
in
government
service
was~b)(6)
 
I
!bX
6)
lin
Ibis
c:apaoity,
)'OII(bX6)
I
[b)(6) .
b) 6
You
have
received
an
offer
of
employment
from
Kb)(6)
Ito
perfonn
a
variety
of
tasks
as
a
consultant.
Your
proposed
responsibilities
include:
providi anal is and advice
to
b)(6)
management
on
a
ran
e of
topics
including
but
not
limited
to
b)(6)
b)(6)
asked
to
give
advice
t
on
various
contractual
relationship issue resolutions
(i.e.,
Swyear
vice
onewyear
contracts between
b)(6)
an.
d the
Air
Force). Because
youare
still
withln
to;j
one-year
"coolingoff"period.
b)(6)
fEr80il
added
in
your
statcrnent
of
work
that. b
(6
Kb)(6)
lis
not
being asked to
ep~sent
 
b)(6)
to
the
USAFin
any fashton,
rather
to
provideadvice
to
(6)
 
I
The
only
law thatwould
prevent
you.
as a fonner senior
official.
from
accepting
compensation
from
any
particular
entity
is
the
Procurement
Integrity
Act,
41
U.S.C.
§423.
The
Procurement
Integrity
Act
prohibits a former
ftj~ial
 
of
a Federal agency
from
acceptingcompensation
from
a contractor
within
a period of
one
year
after
such
fonner official
served
in
a
particular
capacity
or
personally
took
one
or
more
actions
involving
Federal
Agencyprocurement.
The
restrictions
on
post~govemment
 
employment
are
triggered
by
bolding certainpositions, or making certain
decisions.
on large acquisitions.
This
includes
serving
as theProcuring Contracting Officer (PCO), Source Selection Authority (SSA), serving as a
member
of
the
Source
SelectionEvaluationBoard,
serving
as
the
chief
of
afinancial ortechnical evaluation
team,
or
serving
as
the
ProgramManager,Deputy Program
Manager or AdministrativeContiacting Officer
on
a contract over S
10 miJlion
.
•'
.<
CREW v. DOD MAY2013 RELEASE 000002
 
2
The
one.year compensation
ban
also applies
to anyone
who
personally
makes
any
of
tho
following
decisions:
to
awat'd
a contract or a
subcontrftct
over
$10
million, award a modification
of
contractorsubcontractover
$10
million,
award
a
task orderordeliveryorderover$10million. establish overhead or other rates applicable
toa
contract
at'
contracts that are
valued
over
$10
million,
approve issuance
of
a
contract
payment
or
payments over
$10
million. payor
settle
a
contract
claim
over
S
I
0
million.
.
You
indicate that you have
not acted as
a procurement official or worked on
any
contracts
exceeding
$10,000,000; therefore
the
one-year
ban
under
the Procurement Integrity
Act
(41
.
U.S.C.
§
123)
di
not
apply.
As
such,
it
ismy
conclusion
that,ifoffered,
you
may
accept..position
with
b)(6)
and
perfonn
the
proposed duties subject
to
Ute
post-government
employment
restrictiollS
discussed
below.
It
is
highly probable that
you
may
contact Air Force officials
in
the course
of
your
future
employment;
therefore
a
review
of
the post-employment
restrictions
under
18
U.S,C.
§
207
is
appropriate.
Title
18
U.S.C.
§207
is a criminal
statute
that
restricts
certain
representational activities
of fonner Government officials. It prevents
an individual
who
participated in
t
or
was responsible
for,
a particular matter while
employed
by
the
Government
from
later
"switching sides"
and
representing
someone
else
in
the
same
matter.
It
also provides additional restrictions
for
fonnergeneral officers and senior employees.
As
a
former
Government employee.
18
U.S.C.
§207(a)(1) prohibits
you
for life
from
acting
as
Igent
for,
or otherwise representing,
formally
or infonnally. anyone except theUltitedStates before
any
department, agency.
or
office
of
the
United States in connection
with
W
Qarticl.dar
matter
involving
specific
parties
in
~hi9b
 
~h~
 
Un.ited.S~te$
 
i$
a
part).'.Ql'
bas
a
direct
and
substantial interest
and
inwhich
YOll
pAl'ticlld¢d
tit.b
w
abttantlW
for
the
government during
yow
employment.
Each
of
the
latter
underlined
tems
must
apply
to
your
situation before
this
restriction is applied.
"Partic;u1ar
matter" includes any
investigation.application. request
for
Nling
or
determination.
rule making,
contract, controversy,
claim,
charge, accusation, arrest
or
judicial or other
proceeding.
The
particular
matter must involve
the
same
specific
party
or
parties at
the
time
of
the
employee'sparticipation.
You
are
abo
barred
foraperiod
of
CWo
yean
from
the.
date
of
retirement
&om
acting
as
agent
for,
or
otherwise representing,
fonnally
or
informally. anyone except the United
States
. before any department, agency, or office
ofthe
United
States
In
connection
with
any
particularmatter involving the
aame
apecific parties
and
in
whic;h
the
government
is
a party
or
has
a
directand
substanlial interest
and
which specific matter
was
pending under
mur
official
remgOJibility
duringthe
last year
of
such
responsibility. lSD.S.C.
§
207(a)(2).
"Official responsibility" is
1he
authority
to
approve or disapprove
or
othenvise
direct
government
action.
Th~
 
actUal
scope
of
your
official responsibility is
tY.J)tc:ally
determined
by
those areas assigned
by
statute, regulation,executive order
or
job
description.
These
prohibitions
do
not preclude
you
ftom giving behind the scenes assistance in
t-<ll\neetion.
with
another
person's
ttpttsentation
to
the
go:\lemal~t;
 
but
tbrmt1i,mployees
.,-e
CREW v. DOD MAY2013 RELEASE 000003

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd