U.S. Department of Defense INTEGRITY INDEPENDENCE EXCELLENCE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION Controlled by: Administrative Investigations CUI Category: Law Enforcement Distribution/Dissemination Control: FEDCON POC: Marguerite C. Garrison / 703-604-8500 MR. GARRY REID, SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE DIRECTOR FOR DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE, LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND SECURITY OFFICE OF THE UNDERSECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR INTELLIGENCE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION: MR. GARRY P. REID DIRECTOR FOR DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE, LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND SECURITY OFFICE OF THE UNDERSECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR INTELLIGENCE I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY Complaint Origin and Allegations On April 9, 2019, the DoD Office of Inspector General (OIG) received the first of four anonymous complaints against Mr. Garry P. Reid, the Director for Defense Intelligence (Counterintelligence, Law Enforcement, and Security [CL&S]), Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence [OUSD(I)]). The complaints alleged that Mr. Reid was having a sexual affair with two subordinate Government employees (Employees 1 and 2) and that he created a negative work environment. We initiated an investigation into these allegations, and also investigated an allegation that Mr. Reid sexually harassed Employee 2. Our investigation also examined Mr. Reid's use of personal e-mail for official DoD communications in which he discussed official DoD information with members of his staff and other DoD military, civilian, and contractor employees, or in which he sent DoD documents to his personal e-mail for work on his home computer. If substantiated, these allegations would violate the standards summarized throughout this report. We present the applicable standards in Appendix A. We briefly discuss an additional allegation that we did not substantiate in Appendix B. Scope and Methodology of the Investigation During our investigation, we interviewed Mr. Reid and 21 witnesses (including Employees 1 and 2) who had information about the allegations, or who were identified as potentially having knowledge relevant to our investigation. We reviewed and examined Government issued cellular phones and over 317,000 classified and unclassified official e-mails. We also reviewed applicable standards, travel documents, and personnel records. On January 28, 2020, we provided Mr. Reid our Tentative Conclusions Letter (TCL) containing our preliminary conclusions and gave him the opportunity to comment on the results of our investigation before finalizing our report. On February 12, 2020, Mr. Reid provided us with his response to our preliminary conclusions. The term personal e-mail throughout this report refers to non-Government personal e-mail accounts (such as Gmail and others). DoD Instruction 5230.09, Clearance of DoD Information for Public Release, defines official DoD information as All information that is in the custody and control of the DoD, relates to information in the custody and control of the DoD, or was acquired by DoD personnel as part of their official duties or because of their official status within DoD. In his response to our TCL, Mr. Reid wrote that he respectfully disagree[d] with our preliminary conclusions on all three allegations but acknowledge[d] the value of th[e] investigation for showing [him] areas for self-improvement. We carefully considered Mr. Reids comments on our preliminary conclusions, re-examined our evidence along with the new evidence he provided, and include his comments, in part, throughout this report. Throughout his response, Mr. Reid also wrote multiple times that he believed he was targeted by complaints made by a small number of employees who wanted to tarnish [his] reputation as part of a smear campaign. We initiated our investigation based on multiple anonymous complaints against Mr. Reid. We reviewed each allegation objectively and based our conclusions solely on evidence and facts from our investigation. The sources of the allegations are not relevant to our analysis or our conclusions. Conclusions Mr. Reids Relationship with Employee 1 We concluded that Mr. Reids overall course of conduct with his subordinate, Employee 1, created a widespread perception of an inappropriate relationship and favoritism. However, we did not find evidence to substantiate the anonymous allegation that Mr. Reid and Employee 1 engaged in a sexual affair and both denied the allegation. As a supervisor, Mr. Reid should have used better judgment. Instead, he established and maintained a close and unduly familiar relationship with Employee 1, creating a widespread perception among 11 witnesses at different levels within Mr. Reids organization of an inappropriate relationship and favoritism. Mr. Reid should have notified his supervisors and human resources department of the full extent of his relationship with Employee 1 to ensure adequate oversight of any personnel decisions involving Employee 1. We concluded that his actions also created the appearance of impropriety with his subordinate and violated the Joint Ethics Regulation (JER) prohibition against actions that create the appearance of an inappropriate relationship or preferential treatment. Mr. Reids TCL Response Regarding His Relationship with Employee 1 In his response to our TCL, Mr. Reid wrote that the DoD OIG falsely concluded that there was a widespread perception of impropriety and favoritism within his workforce. According to Mr. Reid, his actions did not create a widespread perception of having an inappropriate relationship with Employee 1 or providing her favoritism, and he did not fail to uphold the standards outlined in the JER regarding responsibility for managing employee perceptions of unethical behavior. Mr. Reid wrote that he did not regularly hug and kiss Employee 1 as established in the report. Mr. Reid stated that he greeted Employee 1 with a brief kiss on the cheek outside the workplace in a completely socially-acceptable manner. However, he denied the assertion that he kissed Employee 1 in her office. Additionally, Mr. Reid stated that he did not show undue favoritism to Employee 1; rather he provided her performance feedback, career guidance, and on-the-job mentoring, as part of his leadership responsibilities. We recognized that summarizing Mr. Reids response risked oversimplification and omission. Accordingly, we included Mr. Reids comments throughout this report and provided his supervisor with a copy of Mr. Reids full response to our TCL. We disagree with Mr. Reids assertions about his relationship with Employee 1. Considering his overall course of conduct, we concluded that Mr. Reids supervision and mentorship of Employee 1, while also having a close and unduly personal relationship with her, led employees to call into question his impartiality regarding his decisions concerning Employee 1. We stand by our conclusion that Mr. Reid should have used better judgment to avoid creating a widespread perception of an inappropriate relationship and favoritism. Mr. Reids Relationship with Employee 2 We did not find evidence to substantiate the anonymous allegation that Mr. Reid and Employee 2 engaged in a sexual affair and both denied the allegation. Employee 2 told us that Mr. Reid hugged and kissed her, unwantedly, on at least three occasions and that one of the kisses was on her lips, making her feel uncomfortable. However, she also told us the kiss was not intimate and described it as just a peck. She also told us she considered herself a hugger but was never comfortable with anything but the quick hug. Mr. Reid denied sexually harassing Employee 2. Mr. Reid admitted to us that he had kissed and hugged Employee 2, but that the kisses were always on the cheek and never on the lips. Mr. Reid described his kisses with Employee 2 as socially acceptable and professionally appropriate like just an arm on a shoulder or a pat on the back and not an embrace. In addition, Mr. Reid told us that he had meetings with Employee 2 which were very emotional for her and that she usually ended them with a hug but that they were never sexual. He also stated that Employee 2 never expressed any indication that his interactions with her included unwanted interest or affection. We did not find sufficient evidence to determine that Mr. Reids conduct toward Employee 2 constituted sexual harassment or some other form of misconduct. Use of Personal E-mail to Conduct Official DoD Business We also concluded that Mr. Reid used his personal e-mail accounts to conduct official DoD business in violation of DoD policies described in Appendix A. We determined that Mr. Reid forwarded DoD official communications and information marked as FOUO, Unclassified/FOUO, and Controlled Unclassified Information to his personal e-mail accounts, which were shared accounts for him and Mr. Reids TCL Response Regarding His Use of Personal E-mails to Conduct Official Business In his response to our TCL, Mr. Reid wrote that he disagreed with the conclusion that his use of personal e-mail accounts to conduct official DoD business was inconsistent with DoD policy. . Reid stated that he used his personal e-mail accounts out of necessity to meet the fast-paced, short-fused mission requirements, normally working at home late at night to meet overwhelming demands of his offices mission. Mr. Reid also stated that he acted believing that [he was] authorized to conduct official business using [his] personal computer. Mr. Reid stated that he did not deny that some of these included attachments marked For Official Use Only, but that they could have also been properly marked as Unclassified and agreed that he should have removed the markings before sending the attachments. Mr. Reid also told us he did not have a written waiver or verbal guidance to use his personal e-mails for official business. He also told us that [he] believed [he] applied the policy test of determining whether it was a rare and extraordinary necessity and that he felt empowered to make those judgements in the moment and not seek a waiver for higher level approval. We stand by our conclusion that Mr. Reid used his personal e-mail accounts to conduct official DoD business in violation of DoD policies. DoD policy allows the use of personal e-mails under rare and extraordinary situations to send urgent DoD mission-related email[s]. We determined that the content and nature of the e-mails did not meet these criteria to justify using personal e-mail accounts. Mr. Reid used his personal e-mail accounts on multiple occasions to conduct official DoD business that were part of his regular duties. Our review of Mr. Reids e-mails found they did not include matters that were rare, extraordinary, urgent, or emergencies. Additionally, convenience is not an acceptable reason to use personal e-mail to conduct official DoD business. We found no evidence that Mr. Reids use of personal e-mail met the DoDs criteria for rare and extraordinary circumstances, or that he requested or received an exception to policy to use his personal e-mail account to conduct official DoD communications. If Mr. Reid believed that his use of personal e-mails was necessary to conduct official business, he should have requested an exception to the DoD policy. In summary, we stand by our conclusion that Mr. Reid used his personal e-mail accounts to conduct official DoD business in violation of DoD policies. Treatment of Employee 2 and Alleged Negative Work Environment We did not substantiate the allegation that Mr. Reid fostered a negative work environment by failing to treat subordinates with dignity and respect. One witness described Mr. Reid and Employee 2s relationship as challenged based on hearing them yell at each other behind closed doors. Employee 2 described some of her conversations with Mr. Reid behind closed doors as heated and Mr. Reid described them as lively. Although Mr. Reid and Employee 2 used profanity during these heated conversations, we found that Mr. Reid never used profanity directed toward her, or publically demeaned or humiliated her. Seven witnesses provided us with unfavorable comments concerning Mr. Reids poor, direct, or unpredictable communications. They also referred to him as gruff and moody. For instance, one witness said that Mr. Reid could get angry, but that his anger was directed at situations, not individuals. None of the witnesses told us that Mr. Reid demeaned or publically humiliated subordinates. Also, Mr. Reid denied directing profanity towards a subordinate. In addition, twelve witnesses provided us with favorable comments about Mr. Reids leadership style. These witnesses told us that Mr. Reid had positive leadership skills and was always appropriate and never disrespectful. While the comments regarding Mr. Reids conduct were not all positive, they did not rise to the level of violations of the JER. In this investigation, we considered the JER, which emphasizes primary ethical values including fairness, caring, and respect that should guide all DoD employees. periods of time while working on products on Mr. Reids computer at his standup desk and said, they definitely stand closer to each other than I would stand next to any of my [colleagues]. Employee 1 told us that Mr. Reid never kissed her on the lips, but that Mr. Reid sometimes kissed her as a form of greeting when picking her up and dropping her off at night at her home during their daily commute together. She told us that during their morning commute, Mr. Reid would sometimes lean over when she got in the car and greet her with a cheek-to-cheek kiss, or a kiss on her forehead or temple. She also told us that they would do a quick hug or ... the cheek kiss, and say good night sometimes when he dropped her off at night. Additionally, she told us that when she had a lot of stuff to carry at night, Mr. Reid would assist her by opening the door . Employee 1 also said she remembered a time when she was standing at her desk in her office and Mr. Reid walked into her office, put his arm around her shoulder for about a split- second, and then may have kissed her. She told us that she did not remember him kissing her, but he may have done the cheek-to-cheek or air kiss that colleagues do sometimes. She told us she did not think it was inappropriate. We asked Employee1 how often Mr. Reid greeted her that way. She told us: I wouldn't say that it's a, you know, common occurrence, but it's not so like out of the ordinary that it would be memorable. Right? It's just not a big deal ... . The only reason it was even memorable was because [the witness] was standing there and gave me that look, you know, kind of attitude look ... . He was dropping something off and Mr. Reid kind of turned around [and acknowledged the witness]. And [the witness] left and then we continued our conversation about the meeting [Mr. Reid] just got out of. Employee 1 told us that all of the kisses she received from Mr. Reid were welcome because its never been uncomfortable and it doesnt feel ... aggressive or inappropriate or meaningful. Employee 1 told us that she did not remember Mr. Reid ever rubbing her back or touching her shoulders. She also said that it was possible that hes touched my shoulder with his shoulder while looking at something on his computer at his standup desk, but it didnt make an impact on her so she could not think of a specific incident. Employee 1 also denied having a sexual relationship with Mr. Reid. Personal Travel Mr. Reid and took two personal trips to with Employee 1. According to Employee 1 and Mr. Reid, the three of them stayed together at an Airbnb in July 2018 while house- hunting for . During the second trip in March 2019, they stayed at In September 2018, Mr. Reid and Employee 1 were on official travel to Europe and were accompanied by . Mr. Reid and Employee 1 both took 2 days of personal leave during the trip to go sightseeing with . Employee 1 told us thatinvited her to Airbnb is an online marketplace for arranging lodging. accompany them on the sightseeing trip because Employee 1and they thought it would be fun to ... show [European cities and obviously go shopping with her. Sharing Lunch An anonymous complaint stated that Mr. Reid and Employee 1 had daily lunches in Mr. Reids office behind closed doors. Employee 1 told us that she and formed a friendship mostly around food after she introduced Mr. Reid and to the Whole30 diet program. She told us that she and Mr. Reid started having daily lunches in his office on January 3, 2019, after they and started the Whole30 program. Employee 1 described the daily lunches as working lunches. Employee 1 told us Mr. Reids door was always open. Two witnesses who visited Mr. Reids office suite several times a week during lunch told us that his door was always closed. We interviewed four other witnesses who worked just outside Mr. Reids office who gave us various accounts of whether the door was open or closed during lunch. One witness told us that the door was closed 90% of the time. Another witness told us that it was closed 75% of the time. The third witness told us that 80% of the time the door was cracked [open], 10% wide open, and 10% closed. The fourth witness told us that the door was always open. All four witnesses told us that they entered Mr. Reids office during lunch if they needed to talk to Mr. Reid. Three other witnesses told us that they observed Mr. Reid and Employee 1 with matching Tupperware containers during their lunches. One of these witnesses described the lunch set up as very weird, and the second witness described it as two place settings, like ... a restaurant. The third witness told us that Mr. Reids and Employee 1s lunch setup included salt and pepper shakers, a side table, and some sparkling water. Two other witnesses told us that they observed Mr. Reid and Employee 1 bring their own food to a conference where food was provided. Both of these witnesses also described the behavior as weird. One of these witnesses told us that Mr. Reid and Employee 1 each brought their food in the same type of Tupperware containers. Employee 1 told us that she and Mr. Reid took turns bringing lunch to the office. She said that sometimes Mr. Reid asked her if she wanted leftovers that cooked for dinner and that other times