Depot whistleblower case remains open
By Ronica Brandenburg

Representatives for a Blue Grass Army Depot whistleblower are still waiting for Army internal investigation results that were due in December, said Richard Condit, general counsel for Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) based in Washington, D.C.

The case of Donald VanWinkle of Berea began in September when he filed a federal whistleblower complaint alleging improper air monitoring inside the chemical weapons storage igloos at the depot. The complaint was filed under the Clean Air Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

In an affidavit released in late August, VanWinkle claimed he was reassigned from his job for asking questions about plant safety.

“In February or March of this year, I, along with other BGAD employees, attended training sessions with the manufacturer of the air monitoring equipment we use,” VanWinkle wrote in his affidavit. “During our training, we learned that the (air) sampling (methods) being used at BGAD to monitor the seven igloos that store munitions containing agent VX was incorrect.”

The complaint triggered an immediate federal investigation.  

“The investigation by the U.S. Department of Labor into the retaliation Mr. VanWinkle has suffered and continues to experience, is ongoing,” Condit said. “The Army Inspector General has completed an investigation of some of the technical issues Mr. VanWinkle has raised and we are awaiting a copy of the report, which was due Dec. 16.”

The Army issued a non-disclosure order, that PEER representatives refer to as a “gag order,” in September stating that “Recent incidents should remind all of us that the current security environment poses serious threats to our military as a whole. We must all ensure that we are doing everything possible to protect the lives of our soldiers and their families and ultimately to not put our soldiers, civilians and contractors at risk through inadvertent disclosure of classified or sensitive information.”

Greg Mahall, public affairs officer for the Army's Chemical Materials Agency, said the non-disclosure order refers to a much broader range of security measures including military members sending certain things home such as pictures and letters describing what is happening in the area where they are stationed. In no way was the order to be viewed as a “gag order,” he said.

“What we have here is an interpretation from PEER,” Mahall said “I do not believe that when it came out, it was directed to VanWinkle. In any case, it is a fine line to tread between the public's right to know and our nation's call for operational security. PEER is interpreting this way out of context and applying it to benefit their particular claim here.”

Condit claims that the Army is still retaliating against VanWinkle by not letting him back into his previous position as an air systems monitoring operator.

According to Condit, VanWinkle should not be punished “for raising concerns about monitoring at the (depot) and for refusing to place his safety and unqualified confidence in the hands of person(s) who have demonstrated that they are not capable of competently overseeing chemical warfare agent monitoring and storage operations,” he said.

VanWinkle will continue to work at the depot, but only on assignments that do not involve access to areas where chemical warfare agents are stored. He will remain in this position until all investigations are complete and the Army makes a final decision regarding his status as an employee.

Ronica Brandenburg can be reached at rbrandenburg@richmondregister.com or 623-1669, Ext. 234.