Beginning in April 2008, the Secretary of Defense and the Inspector General, Department of Defense (DOD IG) received letters from numerous members of Congress requesting inquiries into the issues raised in an April 20, 2008, New York Times article, "Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon's Hidden Hand." Members of Congress also requested concurrent inquiries from the Comptroller General, Government Accountability Office (GAO), and the Federal Communications Commission for (1) a legal opinion on whether DOD violated laws related to propaganda, and (2) an opinion on whether the military analysts received valuable consideration and did not disclose the origin or source of the information broadcast, respectively. Congress included the requirements for GAO and DOD IG inquiries in Public Law 110-417, Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2009, October 14, 2008. In response to congressional requests and Public Law, we conducted a review and issued DOD IG Report IE-2009-004, "Examination of Allegations Involving DOD Office of Public Affairs Outreach Program," dated January 14, 2009. However, following subsequent questions and an internal quality review, the DOD IG withdrew the report. To address the congressional concerns, we initiated this reevaluation in August 2009 focusing on the following questions: Did the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs (OASD (PA)) outreach activities for Retired Military Analysts (RMA) comply with policies, procedures and requirements? Were the activities reviewed, approved and executed in accordance with the guidelines? Did RMAs have access to high-level officials, travel events, and classified information not available to others? If so, did the access comply with legal and policy requirements? Did RMAs have Defense contractor affiliations? If so, did participation in the RMA outreach activities benefit them financially as it relates to the contractor affiliation? In its legal opinion (B-316443, July 21, 2009)1, GAO concluded "these RMA Outreach] activities did not violate the publicity or propaganda prohibition." Accordingly, our reevaluation did not address whether OASD (PA) used RMAs as surrogates to deliver propaganda messages to the American public.