Command Investigations (CDI’s & Army AR 15-6): Understanding the Process

In the intricate ecosystem of military operations, maintaining discipline, ensuring accountability, and addressing incidents effectively are paramount. Beyond the formal criminal justice system of courts-martial, military commanders frequently rely on administrative investigations to gather facts, determine causes, and inform critical decisions.

Among the most common and far-reaching of these are Command Directed Investigations (CDIs), which, in the U.S. Army, are primarily conducted under the authority of Army Regulation 15-6 (AR 15-6). While not criminal proceedings, findings from these investigations can have significant, and often career-altering, consequences for service members.

Understanding the purpose, process, and potential impact of CDIs and AR 15-6 investigations is vital for any service member who may become involved, whether as a witness, a subject, or an individual whose actions are being scrutinized. This guide provides a comprehensive overview of these administrative inquiries, their distinction from criminal investigations, and the crucial rights and strategies for those navigating their complexities.

I. What are Command Directed Investigations (CDIs) & Army AR 15-6 Investigations?

Command Directed Investigations (CDIs) are administrative inquiries ordered by a commander or other competent authority to gather facts related to a specific incident, allegation, or issue. Their primary purpose is fact-finding and informing command decisions, rather than prosecuting criminal offenses.

A. The Role of Army Regulation 15-6 (AR 15-6)

In the U.S. Army, AR 15-6 is the foundational regulation governing formal and informal investigations. It provides detailed procedures for appointing investigating officers, defining the scope of inquiries, gathering evidence, documenting findings, and submitting recommendations. While AR 15-6 applies to the Army, other branches have similar regulations for their own administrative investigations (e.g., Navy/Marine Corps – JAGMAN investigations, Air Force – AFI 90-201, Coast Guard – COMDTINST M5830.1).

B. Purpose and Distinction from Criminal Investigations

CDIs and AR 15-6 investigations serve several key purposes:

• Fact-Finding: To establish a clear and accurate record of what occurred in a specific incident or regarding an allegation.
• Informing Command Decisions: To provide commanders with sufficient information to make informed decisions regarding administrative actions, policy changes, disciplinary measures, or corrective actions.
• Accountability: To identify individuals responsible for misconduct, negligence, or failures that led to an adverse event.
• Identifying Systemic Issues: To uncover underlying problems in policies, procedures, or training that contributed to an incident.

A crucial distinction must be made between administrative investigations (CDIs/AR 15-6) and criminal investigations conducted by specialized agencies like CID, NCIS, or OSI. While CDIs are fact-finding inquiries for administrative purposes, criminal investigations are specifically aimed at gathering evidence to support criminal prosecution under the UCMJ. However, it is important to note that a CDI can uncover evidence that subsequently leads to a criminal investigation or court-martial charges, or is used in an administrative separation proceeding.

II. When are CDIs/AR 15-6 Investigations Used?

CDIs and AR 15-6 investigations are versatile tools employed across a wide range of situations within the military. They are initiated whenever a commander needs to formally understand an incident or allegation to determine appropriate action.

• Accidents: Investigating the cause of accidents involving personnel, vehicles, aircraft, or equipment (e.g., training accidents, vehicular collisions, loss of government property).
• Allegations of Misconduct: Addressing allegations of harassment, hazing, bullying, toxic leadership, unprofessional conduct, minor UCMJ violations not immediately referred to criminal investigators, or ethical breaches.
• Loss or Damage to Government Property: Determining responsibility and accountability for lost, stolen, or damaged government property.
• Financial Irregularities: Investigating suspected fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement of funds.
• Workplace Disputes: Inquiries into formal complaints or disputes within a unit or organization.
• Death Investigations: For non-combat deaths, or those initially appearing non-criminal, to establish the cause and circumstances.
• Pre-Decisional Inquiries for Adverse Administrative Actions: Often conducted to gather facts before a commander makes decisions on imposing a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), initiating administrative separation proceedings, or relieving an officer for cause.

III. The AR 15-6 Investigation Process: A Detailed Look

The AR 15-6 investigation process is structured to ensure a thorough and objective fact-finding effort. Understanding each stage is essential for anyone involved.

A. Initiation and Appointing Authority

An AR 15-6 investigation begins with a formal order from a commander or other designated appointing authority. This order specifies the scope of the investigation, the specific facts to be uncovered, and the deadline for the final report. The appointing authority determines the level of formality and resources allocated to the inquiry.

B. The Investigating Officer (IO)

A commissioned officer, warrant officer, or civilian employee is appointed as the Investigating Officer (IO). The IO must be impartial and possess the necessary qualifications and experience for the complexity of the investigation. The IO’s primary role is to act as a neutral fact-finder, independently gathering and analyzing all relevant evidence.

C. Fact-Finding and Evidence Gathering

The IO’s core task is to gather all pertinent facts related to the scope defined by the appointing authority. This typically involves:

• Interviewing Witnesses: Obtaining sworn or unsworn statements from individuals with knowledge of the incident.
• Reviewing Documents: Examining official records, policies, emails, text messages, training logs, and other relevant paperwork.
• Collecting Physical Evidence: Documenting and, if necessary, securing physical evidence related to the incident.
• Site Visits: Inspecting locations relevant to the investigation.

D. Witness Rights: What Every Service Member Needs to Know

A crucial aspect of AR 15-6 investigations involves the rights of individuals being questioned. While the process is administrative, it can touch upon criminal conduct, triggering specific protections:

• General Witnesses (Not Suspects): Individuals who are merely witnesses and not suspected of misconduct are generally compelled to cooperate and answer questions truthfully. However, even a witness retains their right against self-incrimination. If questioning shifts to suspecting them of a crime, they must be immediately warned of their Article 31b rights.
• Subjects/Suspects of Investigation: If a service member is identified as a “subject” or “suspect” whose conduct could lead to adverse administrative action or criminal charges, they must be advised of their Article 31b UCMJ rights before any questioning. This means they have the absolute right to remain silent and the right to consult with military counsel before answering any questions. They also have the right to present their own evidence, witness statements, and provide a rebuttal or explanation of their actions to the IO. It is strongly advised for any service member identified as a subject to consult with an attorney immediately and potentially decline to answer questions.

E. The Report of Investigation (ROI)

Upon completing fact-finding, the IO compiles a formal Report of Investigation (ROI). This report typically includes:

• Findings of Fact: A detailed, neutral presentation of what the IO determined happened based on the evidence.
• Opinions (if authorized): The IO’s conclusions drawn from the facts, within the scope of the investigation.
• Recommendations (if authorized): Proposed actions based on the findings and opinions, such as disciplinary measures, administrative actions, or policy changes.

The ROI is an official document, typically internal to the command, but its contents can have significant ramifications.

F. Referral for Comment (Subjects)

If the IO’s findings or opinions are adverse to a service member, that service member typically has the right to review the relevant portions of the ROI and provide their own written comments or rebuttal. This is a critical opportunity for the service member to address adverse findings, provide additional context, present mitigating factors, or challenge the IO’s conclusions before the report is finalized.

G. Approval Authority

The completed ROI is submitted to the appointing authority (or a higher-ranking commander designated as the approval authority). This authority reviews the report, makes final determinations on the findings, opinions, and recommendations, and decides what actions, if any, will be taken based on the investigation’s results.

IV. Key Roles and Responsibilities in AR 15-6 Investigations

Several individuals play distinct roles within an AR 15-6 investigation, each with specific responsibilities:

• Appointing Authority: The commander or official who orders the investigation, defines its scope, and eventually reviews the final report.
• Investigating Officer (IO): The impartial fact-finder who gathers evidence, conducts interviews, and compiles the Report of Investigation.
• Legal Advisor (Staff Judge Advocate – SJA): Provides legal guidance to the IO and the appointing authority throughout the investigation, ensuring compliance with regulations and legal principles.
• Subject of Investigation: The individual whose conduct or actions are the focus of the inquiry. They have specific rights, especially regarding self-incrimination and due process.
• Witnesses: Individuals who possess information relevant to the investigation. They are generally compelled to cooperate, but retain their right against self-incrimination if their testimony could expose them to criminal liability.

V. Distinction from Criminal Investigations (CID, NCIS, OSI)

While both administrative and criminal investigations involve fact-finding, their fundamental differences dictate their purpose, procedures, and potential outcomes:

• Purpose:
  • Administrative (CDI/AR 15-6): Fact-finding to inform administrative decisions, ensure compliance with regulations, and identify systemic issues.
  • Criminal (MCIO): To gather evidence for the purpose of criminal prosecution under the UCMJ.
• Evidence Standard:
  • Administrative: Generally more flexible, often allowing hearsay or evidence that might not meet strict criminal admissibility standards.
  • Criminal: Adheres strictly to the Military Rules of Evidence (MRE) to ensure evidence is admissible in a court-martial.
• Rights of the Accused/Subject:
  • Administrative: While Article 31b rights apply if questioning shifts to a criminal suspicion, administrative investigations can compel witnesses to provide statements on non-incriminating matters.
  • Criminal: Article 31b warnings are paramount, and the accused cannot be compelled to provide any statement or evidence against themselves.
• Outcomes:
  • Administrative: Can lead to GOMORs, non-judicial punishment (NJP), administrative separation, adverse performance evaluations, or relief for cause.
  • Criminal: Can lead to preferral of charges, court-martial, and punitive discharges (Bad-Conduct or Dishonorable) or confinement.

It is crucial to recognize that an administrative investigation can uncover facts that are then referred to criminal investigative agencies. Therefore, even participation as a “witness” in a CDI can evolve into a criminal matter if suspicions arise.

VI. Impact on Service Members

Despite their “administrative” nature, the findings and recommendations of a CDI or AR 15-6 investigation can have significant and lasting negative impacts on a service member’s career and future.

• General Officer Memorandums of Reprimand (GOMORs): An adverse finding can directly lead to a GOMOR, which, if filed permanently in a service member’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), can effectively end a career by blocking promotions and re-enlistment.
• Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP / Article 15): The findings can serve as the basis for a commander to impose NJP.
• Administrative Separation Proceedings: An adverse AR 15-6 often provides the factual basis for initiating administrative separation proceedings, potentially leading to a less than Honorable discharge (General or OTH).
• Adverse Performance Evaluations: Findings of misconduct or poor performance can result in “referred” performance evaluations (OERs/NCOERs) that are career-damaging.
• Relief for Cause: For officers, an investigation can lead to a formal “Relief for Cause” from a command position, a severe career setback.
• Security Clearance Review: Adverse findings can trigger a review of a service member’s security clearance, potentially leading to its suspension or revocation, thereby ending careers in sensitive positions.
• Referral to Criminal Investigators: If the investigation uncovers evidence of criminal activity, the case can be referred to CID, NCIS, or OSI for further criminal investigation, potentially leading to court-martial.

Even if a CDI does not result in a formal punishment or separation, an adverse finding can create a permanent mark on a service member’s record that can hinder future opportunities.

VII. Defending Against a CDI/AR 15-6

Involvement in a Command Directed Investigation, especially as a subject, demands immediate and informed action to protect your rights and mitigate potential adverse outcomes. Proactive engagement is key.

• Understand Your Rights (Article 31b): If questioned as a suspect, unequivocally invoke your right to remain silent and your right to counsel. Do not provide a statement without consulting an attorney.
• Consult with Counsel: Seek legal advice as soon as you become aware of your involvement in an investigation, especially if you are a subject or believe you could become one. Counsel can advise you on your rights, the best way to respond, and help prepare your case.
• Gather Supporting Evidence: Collect any documents, emails, text messages, or other evidence that supports your position, provides context, or refutes allegations.
• Identify and Interview Witnesses: If possible, identify individuals who can provide favorable testimony and collect their statements.
• Prepare for IO Interview: If you decide to provide a statement (after consulting counsel), prepare thoroughly. Understand the scope of the questions and be precise in your answers.
• Provide a Strong Rebuttal to Adverse Findings: If the IO’s report contains findings or opinions adverse to you, utilize your right to review the report and provide a comprehensive, well-reasoned rebuttal. This rebuttal should address factual inaccuracies, provide context, present mitigating factors, and include supporting documentation.
• Challenge Impartiality/Methodology: If there are concerns about the IO’s impartiality or the fairness/thoroughness of the investigation’s methodology, these should be raised and documented.
• Present Mitigating Factors: Even if misconduct is found, present compelling evidence of your exemplary service, character, and any underlying factors (e.g., mental health, stress) that might have contributed to the situation.

Conclusion

Command Directed Investigations, particularly those conducted under Army Regulation 15-6, are a fundamental component of military command and accountability. While they are administrative in nature, their potential impact on a service member’s career, evaluations, and future can be just as significant as formal criminal proceedings. From investigating accidents and misconduct to informing critical command decisions, these inquiries serve a vital purpose in maintaining the integrity and effectiveness of the armed forces.

For any service member involved in a CDI or AR 15-6 investigation, whether as a witness or a subject, understanding the process, knowing your rights, and preparing an informed response are paramount. Proactive engagement and careful consideration of all potential outcomes are essential to navigate these complex administrative actions successfully and protect your military future.

Understand your rights and defend your career. When facing a Command Directed Investigation, informed action is key.

Seek expert legal guidance immediately.

• Army Criminal Investigation Division (CID)
• Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS)
• Air Force Office of Special Investigations (OSI)
• Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS)