DOD Information Quality Guidelines

The purpose of this guidance is to inform the public about the Department of Defense (DOD) Information Quality practices and guidelines in accordance with Public Law 106- 554, Section 515, otherwise known as the Information Quality Act. The law directed the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue government-wide guidelines that "provide policy and procedural guidance to Federal Agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by Federal Agencies.

In February 2002, OMB issued a memorandum that all Federal agencies issue and implement Information Quality Guidelines. In response to this memorandum, the OMB guidelines were implemented DOD-wide by Deputy Secretary of Defense Memorandum, Feb. 10, 2003, and apply to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Military Departments, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Combatant Commands, Inspector General of the Department, Defense Agencies, DOD Field Activities, and all other organizational entities in DOD (hereafter referred to collectively as “DOD Components”).

In April 2019, OMB issued memorandum M-19-15 to reinforce, clarify, and interpret agency responsibilities regarding the requirements of the Information Quality Act (IQA). It reinforces that agencies develop information quality assurance procedures before disseminating information. It also directs agencies to update their Information Quality guidelines, protect the privacy of the public’s data, and post requests for correction on their agency website.

Information Quality is unique in its scope in that it includes influential scientific, financial, and statistical information. The public distribution of scientific, financial, or statistical information that the DOD deems influential warrants a higher quality standard than that of peer review. To ensure the objectivity of influential scientific, financial, or statistical information, it must be capable of being substantially reproduced in accordance with commonly accepted scientific, financial, or statistical standards. This “reproducibility standard” ensures publicly distributed information is sufficiently transparent in terms of data and methods of analysis.

The Information Quality Act creates a mechanism that enables the public to seek and obtain, where appropriate, correction of information disseminated by DOD that does not comply with OMB Information Quality Guidelines.

DOD allows the public to submit a Request for Correction (RFC) when disseminated information does not comply with OMB and DOD policy, guidelines, and procedures.

Required RFC information:

To obtain consideration, requesters will provide the following information in their RFC:

• Statement: Include the following statement in your RFC “This is a Request for Correction of information submitted under DOD’s Information Quality Guidance.”
• Requestors contact information: Include the name, mailing address, telephone number, email address, and organization affiliation (if any) of the person requesting the correction.
• Description of information to be corrected: Include the name of the DOD report or data product, the date or other identifying information such as the URL of the web page, and a detailed description that clearly identifies the specific information contained in the report or data product for which a correction is being sought.
• Explanation of noncompliance with OMB and/or DOD Information Quality Guidance: Describe how the information is incorrect and fails to meet either the OMB or DOD information quality guidelines.
• Explanation of the impact: Provide an explanation that specifies how the alleged error harms or how a correction would benefit the requestor. Provide specific recommendations for how the information should be corrected.
• Supporting documented evidence: Provide documented evidence to support your request for correction and your recommendations for how the information should be corrected.

RFC Submission:

Send RFCs to: DOD Public Affairs/Information Quality Act | 1400 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1400 or osd.pentagon.pa.mbx.information-quality@mail.mil

RFC Review Process:

RFC Review. DOD conducts a thorough review of the information being challenged, we determine whether the requester has adequately supported the claim that the information is not accurate, clear, complete, or unbiased, and that the requester is an affected person. DOD will respond to RFCs within 60 working days of receipt. If RFC requires more than 60 working days to resolve, DoD will inform the requester that additional time is required.

Response. Before releasing responses to the requestor, DOD will complete all appropriate internal reviews, and share the draft response with OMB for its assessment of compliance with OMB guidance.

Request for Appeal

Appeal. The requestor may file an appeal within 30 working days from the date that DOD transmitted its decisions from the original RFC. The DOD Chief Information Officer (CIO) will process all appeals within 60 working days. If additional time is required at the expiration of the 60-day period, the CIO will notify the appellant of the delay.

Request for Appeals should be submitted to: DOD Public Affairs/Information Quality Act - Appeals | 1400 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1400 or osd.pentagon.pa.mbx.information-quality@mail.mil

Peer Reviews

To ensure the accuracy and integrity of its published information, DOD follows a standardized process wherein the information undergoes internal peer review.

OMB Memorandum No. M-19-15 (April 24, 2019)

Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/M-19-15.pdf

Deputy Secretary of Defense Memorandum (Feb. 10, 2003)

https://media.defense.gov/2020/Feb/07/2002245761/-1/-1/1/200207-D-RB598-001.PDF

Public Law 106-554, Section 515

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2002/02/22/R2-59/guidelines-for-ensuring-and-maximizing-the-quality-objectivity-utility-and-integrity-of-information#p-4

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review