Lawmakers say body armor firm made false claims

House Armed Services Committee members Wednesday accused a body armor maker with falsifying information about its product and making unsubstantiated claims that the Army rigged live-fire tests to set the firm's vests up for failure.

During a long hearing that often seemed like a trial, the Fresno, Calif.-based Pinnacle Armor Inc. offered lawmakers no firm evidence to back up its public assertions that Army officials manipulated tests on its Dragon Skin body armor to cover up the vests' true capabilities.

Murray Neal, the Pinnacle Armor chief executive, expressed displeasure over a May 2006 Army test and a "pattern of anti-Dragon Skin misinformation" coming from the military. But Neal was unable to provide specific information on wrongdoing done by either the Army or H.P. White Laboratory Inc., a private ballistic research facility in Maryland that ran the tests.

"They are trying to impugn the integrity of the Army through innuendo," Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Fla., said of the firm in a brief interview outside the hearing room. Meanwhile, Rep. Michael Turner, R-Ohio, said Neal's testimony was "one of the least professional" he has ever heard before the committee.

The panel's hearing came as the Air Force, which also has tested the Pinnacle Armor vests, has opened a criminal investigation into the firm over allegations that it had placed a label on their Dragon Skin armor improperly stating that it had been certified to a ballistic level it had not.

House Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo., and other lawmakers, saying they want to ensure U.S. troops have the best protection available, called for more tests to determine which armor works better.

Nonetheless, Skelton seized on written evidence demonstrating that Pinnacle Armor had labeled its armor as certified eight months before the National Institute of Justice, which evaluates the Dragon Skin vests used for law enforcement personnel, actually certified it as meeting a certain law enforcement specification.

"Being a country lawyer, this bothers me a great deal when you mistake dates so far apart," Skelton told reporters after the hearing.

Meanwhile, Lt. Gen. Ross Thompson, the military director of the Army's acquisition office, called the mislabeling a "serious, fraudulent claim."

Neal told reporters he had not heard of the criminal investigation before the hearing, but added that his company is now in talks with the Air Force. He also said the National Institute of Justice had "verbally" informed him to affix the label to the Dragon Skin armor. Neal said he received no written authorization to do so.

Pinnacle Armor has promoted Dragon Skin armor as a more protective and flexible alternative to the rigid interceptor body armor U.S. troops now wear in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Army has banned its use, but the families of service members have bought the vests and shipped them overseas.

During the hearing, Neal asserted that the Army had inaccurately concluded that bullets had penetrated the Dragon Skin armor during the tests, when in fact it had only pierced the surface of the vests. But Army officials later played a video of the same test that Neal alluded to in his testimony, demonstrating that at least portions of the fragmented bullet had traveled through the entire vest.

Neal, who was featured in the video, said later that the Army showed the wrong test, and disputed that the bullet had actually penetrated the armor. The video showed a large bullet hole on the surface behind the vest.

Skelton called the hearing just weeks after an NBC News report indicated that the Dragon Skin armor performed better in NBC-sponsored ballistic tests than the interceptor body armor the military now distributes to troops.

Army officials testified Wednesday that the interceptor body armor tested against the Dragon Skin in the NBC test was not produced by any of the six companies that supply the vests to the military, a fact that may have contributed to the interceptor armor's poor showing.

The report "brings NBC's credibility into serious question," said Thompson, who added that the news organization disregarded the Army's own evidence to pursue a "salacious story." Skelton announced at the hearing that NBC News declined an invitation to appear before the committee.

A call to NBC's Washington bureau was not returned at presstime.

Thompson suggested that Pinnacle Armor respond to a recent request for proposals for new body armor. By doing so, the company would get its product re-tested along with other potential suppliers.

Thompson stressed that it would be unfair to other armor makers to test Pinnacle Armor's product separately, as the company has proposed. But, in a gesture to the company, he said the Army would not run the tests at the H.P. White facility.

Pinnacle Armor has not responded to three similar requests for proposals offered by the Army in the last three years, according to the Army. Company representatives did participate in an "industry day" last year -- a chance for firms to interact with the Army -- but did not respond to a subsequent request for information.

Stay up-to-date with federal news alerts and analysis — Sign up for GovExec's email newsletters.
Close [ x ] More from GovExec

Thank you for subscribing to newsletters from
We think these reports might interest you:

  • Sponsored by G Suite

    Cross-Agency Teamwork, Anytime and Anywhere

    Dan McCrae, director of IT service delivery division, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

  • Data-Centric Security vs. Database-Level Security

    Database-level encryption had its origins in the 1990s and early 2000s in response to very basic risks which largely revolved around the theft of servers, backup tapes and other physical-layer assets. As noted in Verizon’s 2014, Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR)1, threats today are far more advanced and dangerous.

  • Sponsored by One Identity

    One Nation Under Guard: Securing User Identities Across State and Local Government

    In 2016, the government can expect even more sophisticated threats on the horizon, making it all the more imperative that agencies enforce proper identity and access management (IAM) practices. In order to better measure the current state of IAM at the state and local level, Government Business Council (GBC) conducted an in-depth research study of state and local employees.

  • Sponsored by Aquilent

    The Next Federal Evolution of Cloud

    This GBC report explains the evolution of cloud computing in federal government, and provides an outlook for the future of the cloud in government IT.

  • Sponsored by LTC Partners, administrators of the Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program

    Approaching the Brink of Federal Retirement

    Approximately 10,000 baby boomers are reaching retirement age per day, and a growing number of federal employees are preparing themselves for the next chapter of their lives. Learn how to tackle the challenges that today's workforce faces in laying the groundwork for a smooth and secure retirement.

  • Sponsored by Hewlett Packard Enterprise

    Cyber Defense 101: Arming the Next Generation of Government Employees

    Read this issue brief to learn about the sector's most potent challenges in the new cyber landscape and how government organizations are building a robust, threat-aware infrastructure

  • Sponsored by Aquilent

    GBC Issue Brief: Cultivating Digital Services in the Federal Landscape

    Read this GBC issue brief to learn more about the current state of digital services in the government, and how key players are pushing enhancements towards a user-centric approach.


When you download a report, your information may be shared with the underwriters of that document.