BIGLEY RANISH, LLP

- Attorneys & Counselors at Law -

Exclusively Practicing Federal Security Clearance Defense

Sean M. Bigley* Admitted to Practice:
Jacob T. Ranish* ⬧ *California
Leon J. Schachter⬧ ⬧District of Columbia
Aileen B. Xenakis°+ °Maryland
Illinois (Inactive)
Jeffrey D. Billett⬧ Virginia (Judicial)
Of Counsel +Florida

Vicky M. Mitchell
Sr. Security Specialist

VIA EMAIL ONLY

Virginia.s.penrod.civ@mail.mil

Ms. Virginia Penrod

Office of the Undersecretary of Defense
For Personnel and Readiness
4000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20301-4000

Re: Proposed Removal from Federal Service of Mr. Adam Lovinger

Dear Ms. Penrod:

This office is in receipt of a memorandum from Ms. Julie Blanks proposing to remove our client,
Mr. Adam Lovinger, from federal service on the basis that his security clearance was revoked by
the Department and thus he no longer meets a condition of employment.

As you may be aware, the revocation of Mr. Lovinger’s security clearance constitutes the basis
for a whistleblower reprisal case currently pending before the Office of Inspector General under
Presidential Policy Directive 19 and 50 U.S.C. § 3341(j). That investigation is still ongoing and
only recently we learned that Washington Headquarters Services (WHS) withheld exculpatory
evidence in the case. (See attached).

The proposed removal of Mr. Lovinger from federal service is grossly inappropriate at this
juncture and disregards the Inspector General’s role. It is also entirely unnecessary, as Mr.
Lovinger has been on unpaid leave now for well over a year, resulting in no adverse impact to
the Department by keeping him in an unpaid status until the conclusion of the IG investigation
and issuance of findings.

P.O. Box 3103 │ Los Alamitos, CA 90720 │ Tel. (562) 420-2746 │ Fax 1 (833) DOHA-WIN │ bigleylaw.com
Nothing underscores “whistleblower reprisal” quite like rushing to terminate a whistleblower
from federal service before the Department’s own IG can complete its statutory obligation of
an independent, thorough investigation. Ironically, in the Department’s zeal to show Mr.
Lovinger the door for, among other things, his purported mishandling of “sensitive” – not
“classified”, but merely the made-up designator “sensitive” – information, your office sent the
enclosed attachments with Mr. Lovinger’s proposed removal memorandum meant for someone
else entirely. No doubt the subject of that information, a Mr. [REDACTED] (who this office does
not represent), would be horrified to learn that your office violated his Privacy Act rights and
sent out highly personal information about him to an uninvolved third party, including the
reason for his employment termination, his date of birth, and his full Social Security number. I
trust that someone will be held accountable for this debacle.

In summary, this proposed removal from federal service must be held in abeyance until and
unless the Inspector General’s office completes its investigation and concludes (inconceivably)
that the actions taken against Mr. Lovinger were justified. In the meantime, this proposal – and
any action taken to effectuate it – only further reinforces Mr. Lovinger’s reprisal case.

Sincerely,

Sean M. Bigley
Attorney for Mr. Lovinger

Enclosures: OIG Acceptance for Investigation

Ethics Complaint and Enclosure

Cc: Mr. Scott Graham

Whistleblower Reprisal Investigations Unit
Office of Inspector General

Ms. DeLisa Lay Ragsdale

Chief Investigative Counsel
Chairman Charles E. Grassley
U.S. Senate Committee on Finance