Administrative Investigations

Administrative Investigations in the Military

Administrative Investigations are a way of life in the military.  Whenever there is an allegation of misconduct, poor leadership, command climate issues, discrimination, sexual harassment, or even professionalism within an officers standards of conduct office (lawyers, doctors, CID, chaplains, professionals), an administrative investigation will almost certainly ensue. In my personal military career, I was the subject of two administrative investigations.  This webpage will walk a Soldier or Service Member through the types of administrative investigation that exist in the military, how they are convened, their purpose, and the basics on how to respond.  If you are facing an administrative investigation, call the military lawyers at the Law Office of Will M. Helixon to schedule an immediate free consultation.

The Law Office of Will M. Helixon, with offices in Vilseck, Germany, and Wiesbaden, Germany, brings extensive experience in advising both commanders and Soldiers on Administrative Investigations.

Will M. Helixon, with a background as a command advisor and legal advisor for investigating officers, has provided guidance, reviewed investigations for legal sufficiency, and represented clients involved in various types of investigations. Will has also served as an investigating officer on multiple investigation involving alleged Soldier misconduct.

Understanding how to effectively respond to an adverse administrative investigation is crucial for establishing a solid foundation to address any potential Adverse Administrative Action that may arise. As these investigations often form the basis for future actions, handling them correctly from the outset is key to minimizing the likelihood of receiving adverse administrative consequences. The military lawyers at the Law Office of Will M. Helixon have dedicated a significant portion of their careers to advising commanders during investigations and representing clients who have been subject to such investigations. Contact us today to safeguard your rights and benefit from our expertise as we serve as an effective liaison between you and the investigating officer. Our goal is to assist you in shaping the investigation and maximizing the chances of a positive outcome, ultimately aiming to prevent future Adverse Administrative Actions.

What Are Adverse Administrative Investigations?

Administrative Investigations in the U.S. Army are comprehensive inquiries into potential Soldier misconduct that often result in Adverse Administrative Actions, and in certain cases, trial by courts-martial. These investigations are typically command directed, initiated by commanders to thoroughly examine specific allegations of misconduct, wrongdoing, or the overall command climate involving Soldiers and leaders. There are various types of Administrative Investigations, including:

• Administrative Investigations conducted by an appointed Investigating Officer in accordance with AR 15-6.
• Investigations carried out by a Board of Officers as outlined in AR 15-6.
• Collateral investigations conducted concurrently with other inquiries, following the guidelines of AR 15-6.
• Commander’s Inquiries executed based on Rule for Court-Martial Rule 303.
• Equal Opportunity investigations undertaken according to the procedures outlined in AR 600-20, chapter 6.
• Financial Liability Investigation of Property Loss (FLIPL) performed as prescribed by AR 735-5, chapter 13.
• Inspector General (IG) Investigations conducted pursuant to AR 20-1.
• Line of Duty Investigations directed by AR 600-8-4.
• Safety and Accident Investigations carried out in accordance with AR 385-10.
• Preliminary inquiries similar to Commander’s Inquiries conducted following the guidelines of AR 15-6.
• Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention (SHARP) investigations conducted in accordance with 10 USC § 1561, DoD Instruction 1020.03, Army Directive 2022-13, and AR 600–20, chapter 7.

If you find yourself as a subject or witness in any of these administrative investigations, which could potentially lead to adverse administrative actions such as nonjudicial punishment, a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), a Qualitative Management Program (QMP) Board, security clearance revocation, or involuntary separation by an Administrative Separation (ADSEP) Board or Board of Inquiry, contact the Law Office of Will M. Helixon today. Our team can provide you with a comprehensive understanding of your rights and offer the protection you need to safeguard against subsequent adverse actions.

What Are Administrative Investigations Conducted by an Investigating Officer (AR 15-6)?

Administrative Investigations conducted by an Investigating Officer (IO) are typically appointed by a commander, following the guidelines outlined in AR 15-6, Procedures for Administrative Investigations and Boards of Officers, dated 1 April 2016. The appointing authority selects an officer, and in exceptional circumstances, a non-commissioned officer (NCO) of Sergeant First Class rank or higher, to conduct a thorough fact-finding investigation based on specific allegations mentioned in the appointing memorandum. These investigations, directed by command, often pertain to issues of alleged Soldier misconduct, command climate, or leadership style, as outlined in AR 15-6.

What if there are Criminal Allegations Discovered?

Should the investigation uncover any criminal activity requiring further inquiry, the IO is responsible for promptly notifying the appointing authority and recommending the case be forwarded to the appropriate law enforcement agency. To ensure fairness and impartiality, the IO must hold a higher rank than the subject of the investigation. However, if it is discovered that individuals with higher rank than the IO are implicated, the IO must immediately inform the appointing authority, who will then appoint another IO higher in rank than the newly identified potential subject.

What are the Duties of the Investigating Officer (IO)?

Throughout the investigation process, the IO diligently examines all relevant laws, regulations, and policies. They also conduct interviews with pertinent witnesses, recording or documenting these interviews appropriately. In addition, the IO collects supporting evidence, including military records, command documents, Army forms, medical records, accident reports, law enforcement reports, and any other relevant information. The IO carefully assesses physical evidence, reviews the locations where alleged misconduct or actions took place, seeks expert opinions, and thoroughly examines laboratory and forensic reports.

What Happens when the Administrative Investigation is Completed?

Once the administrative investigation is completed, the IO compiles a comprehensive report outlining their findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on the collected evidence. If the subject of the administrative investigation holds the rank of O1 or above and adverse information is found, the subject is given an opportunity to respond before any action is taken by the approval authority. The completed administrative investigation undergoes a review for legal sufficiency before being forwarded to the appointing authority, who usually also serves as the approval authority.

What Actions can the Approval Authority take on the Administrative Investigation?

The approval authority meticulously reviews the Report of Investigation, along with the accompanying legal review, applying the “preponderance of evidence” standard. Based on this review, they either approve, disapprove, or modify the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented. In cases where adverse findings are made against the Soldier, the administrative investigation is uploaded to the Army Adverse Information Program database, where it becomes part of the Soldier’s AMHRR (Automated Military Human Resource Record). Adverse findings resulting from an administrative investigation often serve as the foundation for various Adverse Administrative Actions, including a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), non-judicial punishment (NJP), poor performance evaluations, relief for cause evaluations, local administrative boards, QMP Boards, security clearance revocations, and other similar measures.

If you are the subject of an administrative investigation, it is vitally important that you contact one of the military lawyers at the Law Office of Will M. Helixon to develop your strategy in shaping the investigation and before you agree to providing the IO a statement.  With our sound legal advise based on years of experience, we will formulate a plan that scrupulously protects your rights while at the same time facilitating the investigation to minimize the chances of adverse findings.  If you are being investigated, call us today.

What Are Administrative Investigations Conducted by a Board of Officers?

An administrative investigation conducted by a Board of Officers constitutes a formal investigation aimed at examining allegations of misconduct against a respondent Soldier. These boards are primarily utilized for administrative separation and Boards of Inquiry. The appointing authority designates a three-person board, each holding a higher rank than the respondent. The board comprises a “government trial counsel” known as a recorder, along with a legal advisor. The respondent receives prior notification regarding the purpose of the board and is guaranteed various rights. These rights encompass the entitlement to legal counsel, including the option of civilian counsel at no expense to the government, the right to request the exclusion of board members due to bias, the right to present evidence and witnesses, the right to cross-examine witnesses summoned by the government, the right to be physically present throughout all stages of the board hearing, and the right to present arguments to the board members. Upon the conclusion of the proceedings, the board members engage in closed deliberations and provide findings based on the evidence presented during the board hearing.

Who can Appoint a Board of Officers to conduct an Administrative Investigation?

The authority to appoint a Board of Officers lies with the following individuals within their respective areas of responsibility: 1) any general court-martial convening authority (GCMCA) or special court-martial convening authority (SPCMCA), including those exercising administrative authority only; 2) any general or flag officer; 3) any commander, deputy commander, or special, personal, or principal staff officer at the rank of colonel or higher (with lieutenant colonels authorized to appoint if assigned to an authorized colonel position) within HQDA, the installation, activity, or unit level; 4) any State adjutant general; 5) a civilian supervisor permanently assigned to a position graded as General Schedule (GS)-14 or above, serving as the head of an agency, activity, division, or directorate; and 6) Principal Deputies, Assistant Deputy Chiefs of Staff, and Assistant Secretaries of the Army possess the authority to act as appointing authorities within HQDA.

What Are Collateral Investigations Conducted Concurrently With Other Inquiries?

Collateral investigations are conducted in conjunction with another type of administrative investigation, such as a death investigation or safety investigation, with a clearly defined purpose. Additional regulations typically specify the circumstances under which a collateral investigation must be conducted, outline its scope, and designate the primary investigation. Unless otherwise specified by regulation, collateral investigations follow the procedures outlined in AR 15-6 for administrative investigations. The appointing authority holds the discretion to determine the priority of investigations, unless otherwise stipulated by regulations.

What are Commander’s Inquiries (Administrative Investigations)?

A Commander’s Inquiry is governed by Rule for Court-Martial 303, which outlines the procedures for handling allegations or suspicions of offenses triable by court-martial within a commander’s jurisdiction. Upon receiving information regarding an accusation or suspicion of misconduct by a member under their command, the immediate commander is obligated to conduct or initiate a preliminary inquiry into the charges or suspected offenses. The nature and extent of the preliminary inquiry typically depend on the gravity and complexity of the case, although it generally adopts an informal approach.

For simple or minor offenses, a Commander’s Inquiry may involve the commander gathering information from the suspected offender’s chain of command. However, more intricate cases may necessitate the appointment of an investigating officer in accordance with AR 15-6.

In situations that involve complex or severe offenses, the commander should engage the assistance of law enforcement investigators, such as Military Police Investigators. In incidents related to sexual assault, the commander must refer the case to the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) for a thorough investigation.

It is crucial to note that a commander who holds the authority to convene special or general courts-martial should not personally conduct the preliminary inquiry but instead appoint another officer to preserve their quasi-judicial role and avoid disqualification as the convening authority.

During the Commander’s Inquiry, the objective is to gather all reasonably available evidence pertaining to guilt or innocence, as well as factors related to aggravation, extenuation, and mitigation.

What Are Equal Opportunity (EO) Investigations?

Military Equal Opportunity (EO) administrative investigations are initiated when a complaint is filed against a Soldier who is alleged to have violated the EO policy. These investigations aim to determine whether the accused Soldier engaged in unlawful discrimination or harassment towards another Soldier or civilian. As a prerequisite for initiating an EO administrative investigation, the individual making the allegation of prohibited discrimination or harassment must notify the command, either through the EO policy or by other means. Concerns and allegations that are raised or resolved outside of the EO complaint processing system are considered problem resolution or leadership actions and are not treated as military EO or harassment complaints under Army Regulation 600-20, Army Command Policy (24 July 2020), Chapter 6. Incidents involving allegations of criminal behavior (violations of UCMJ) will be reported or referred to law enforcement.

EO Complaints should be Handled at the Lowest Level Possible.

Efforts should be made to address EO concerns at the lowest possible level within the organization. If attempts at low-level resolution fail, the situation escalates, or if the nature of the issue is too severe to resolve at a low level, the military EO complaint processing system provides a framework for resolution. Soldiers, cadets, and family members (in accordance with DoDD 1350.2) may utilize the military EO complaint processing system. This system handles complaints that allege unlawful discrimination based on race, color, sex (including gender identity), national origin, religion, or sexual orientation, as well as harassment, which includes hazing, bullying, and other forms of discriminatory harassment. When a Soldier is accused of engaging in such prohibited conduct, one of three types of military EO complaints can be filed: anonymous complaints, informal complaints, and formal complaints.

What are Anonymous Military Equal Opportunity (EO) Complaints?

Anonymous military EO complaints, where the complainant remains unidentified, may be addressed either as informal or formal complaints and entered into the Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) database accordingly. The commander will determine whether sufficient information has been provided to proceed with either an informal or formal complaint. The commander’s name will be recorded as the complainant on the DA Form 7279 (Equal Opportunity and Harassment Complaint Form) and in the MEO database. If the complaint is processed as an informal complaint, the commander will decide whether it is appropriate to inform the entire command or a specific part of the organization about the actions taken. If, during the process of an anonymous complaint, the identity of the actual complainant is revealed, the complainant’s information in the MEO database will be updated, and the actual complainant will be provided with the necessary follow-up actions (DA Form 7279-1, Equal Opportunity and Harassment Complaint Resolution Assessment Form).

Actions taken regarding anonymous complaints will depend on the extent of information provided in the complaint. If an anonymous complaint contains sufficient information to initiate an administrative investigation, the commanding officer or supervisor will initiate the investigation in accordance with AR 600-20, paragraph 6-6(c). If an anonymous complaint does not contain sufficient information to initiate an administrative investigation, the information should be documented in a Memorandum for Record and kept on file in accordance with disposition instructions and the central point of contact responsible for processing discrimination and harassment complaints.

What are Informal Military Equal Opportunity (EO) Complaints?

An informal complaint is one that a Soldier, cadet, or family member does not wish to file in writing on a DA Form 7279. Informal complaints may be resolved directly by the complainant addressing the offending party, a peer, another person within or outside the complainant’s chain of command or NCO chain of command, or the MEO professional. Issues that can be resolved informally might be addressed through problem identification, clarification of issues, discussion, recognition of inappropriate or misleading behavior, and a willingness to change. Actions and resolutions taken with others before involving commanders or MEO professionals are not tracked in the MEO database or reviewed by the MEO professional. Whenever possible, an informal complaint should be resolved within 60 calendar days.

Command Actions Upon Receipt of an Informal EO Complaint.

Upon receipt of a written or oral informal complaint, the commander or MEO professional will listen to the complainant and gather as much information as possible about the complaint. The complainant will be informed of their rights and responsibilities in accordance with DoDI 6400.07. They will also be informed about the support services available to help resolve the issues, both on and off-post, such as health care, counseling, MPOs and CPOs, chaplains, legal assistance, and unit or installation trained mediators for alternative dispute resolution. The complainant will be assured that the communication is protected and will only be shared with those who have a legitimate need-to-know, such as the MEO professional and the commander. The complainant will be informed about both the informal and formal complaint processes and the need to resolve the complaint within 60 days or less, when practical. It will be emphasized that providing a detailed description of the incident is crucial to assist in the investigative process. The complainant will also be made aware that they can choose to resolve the complaint through facilitation, intervention, counseling, and/or training.

Reporting Requirements of an Informal EO Complaint.

Within three calendar days of receiving the complaint (at the next MUTA-4 or other regularly scheduled training for Army Reserve TPU Soldiers), members of the chain of command involved in informal complaint resolution will inform the MEO professional about the initiation of their informal complaint assistance efforts. If the commander receives the complaint and decides to resolve the situation through a commander’s inquiry or AR 15-6 investigation without the assistance of the MEO professional, the commander will also inform the MEO professional within three calendar days of receiving the informal complaint and the subsequent resolution efforts. The MEO professional will enter the informal complaint information into the MEO database no later than three calendar days. After the resolution efforts are completed, the complainant may accept the informal resolution or request further efforts at resolution, submit a formal complaint, or choose not to pursue the complaint. The MEO professional will retain the informal complaint records for 15 years from the date of complaint receipt.

What Is A Financial Liability Investigation of Property Loss (FLIPL) (Administrative Investigation)?

A Financial Liability Investigation of Property Loss (FLIPL) is an administrative investigation that examines what the cause of loss of military property, or the loss of accountability of military property.  The purpose of a financial liability investigation of property loss is to document the loss for accountability purposes, and hold accountable individuals financially liable for the loss in certain circumstances.  A DD Form 200 documents the circumstances concerning the loss or damage of Government property and serves as or supports a voucher for adjusting the property from accountable records. It also documents a charge of financial liability assessed against an individual or entity or provides for the relief from financial liability.

When is a FLIPL Mandatory?

As per Army Regulation (AR) 735-5, chapter 13, initiating and processing a FLIPL is mandatory under certain circumstances to account for lost, damaged, or destroyed Government property. These situations include, but are not limited to: 1) instances of negligence or willful misconduct; 2) changes in the inventory of the accountable officer; 3) admitted loss with a value exceeding the monthly pay of the Soldier; 4) damages or shortages in Government quarters, or loss of furnishings in Non-Governmental quarters exceeding the monthly pay of the Soldier; 5) loss of bulk petroleum products exceeding $1,000; 6) loss or damage of controlled items, night vision equipment, or navigation systems; 7) serial number changes of sensitive items; 8) loss of cash or negotiable instruments exceeding $750; 9) damage to GSA vehicle or rental vehicle when TMP (Transportation Motor Pool) was unavailable; 10) loss resulting from fire, theft, or natural disaster; 11) damage to TMP exceeding $1,000; and 12) any other loss or damage as specified by regulation.

Objectives of the FLIPL Administrative Investigation.

Typically, the appointing or approving authority designates a Financial Liability Officer to conduct the administrative investigation. In exceptional circumstances, an AR 15-6 Investigating Officer may be appointed instead. The DD Form 200 serves as the initial document for initiating the FLIPL. The Financial Liability Officer is typically given a period of 30 days to complete the administrative investigation, determine liability, and provide findings and recommendations. The loss or damage must be directly linked to one or more of the following duties and responsibilities regarding the property: general responsibility, command responsibility, supervisory responsibility, direct responsibility, custodial responsibility, or personal responsibility. It is crucial for the Financial Liability Officer to establish that the conduct of the accountable individual was the direct or “proximate” cause of the property loss or damage.

Conclusion of the FLIPL Administrative Investigation.

Once the responsibility and cause of the loss have been determined, the Financial Liability Officer is responsible for assessing the value of the damaged or lost property. Subsequently, they make recommendations regarding the financial liability of the accountable individual. These recommendations are then forwarded to the appropriate approval authority for further action, ultimately resulting in a decision regarding the liability of the accountable individual or Soldier.

What is an Inspector General’s (IG) Administrative Investigation?

An Inspector General (IG) administrative investigation is conducted to investigate allegations of impropriety made against an individual in the U.S. Army. Any individual has the right to file an IG complaint, which can lead to the initiation of an IG administrative investigation. IG investigative activity is governed by Army Regulation (AR) 20-1, Inspector General Activities and Procedures (23 March 2020). Chapter 7 covers investigative activities of the Inspector General.

Purpose of the IG Administrative Investigation.

The purpose of such an investigation is to provide the commander or the individual directing the investigation with an additional means to address and resolve allegations of impropriety. The primary objective of IG investigations and investigative inquiries is to efficiently and effectively resolve these allegations by gathering evidence, assessing its credibility, analyzing it based on established standards, and presenting the findings in a well-written report. The scope of IG investigations can include violations of policy, regulation, or law; instances of mismanagement; unethical behavior; fraud; or misconduct. However, IGs will first offer the command an opportunity to address the allegations through internal channels. Therefore, IGs will refer all allegations appropriate for command resolution to the commanding officer in accordance with guidance from the directing authority. If the allegations are criminal in nature, they will be referred to the Criminal Investigation Division (CID). Directing authorities should consider an IG administrative investigation or investigative inquiry when extreme discretion is required or when a command investigation is unlikely to be efficient or effective. Once an IG initiates an investigation or investigative inquiry, the IG will see the process through to completion, determining whether the allegations are “substantiated” or “not substantiated” and whether any issues are “founded” or “unfounded.” An IG administrative investigation can take two forms: an investigation or an investigative inquiry.

What is an IG Investigative Inquiry?

An IG investigative inquiry is an informal fact-finding examination conducted to investigate allegations, issues, or adverse conditions that are deemed insignificant in nature by the command IG or the directing authority. These inquiries are utilized when there is no anticipation of serious consequences such as harm to a Soldier or negative impact on the Army’s image. IG investigative inquiries involve the collection and examination of evidence, including testimonies, written statements, documents, and occasionally physical evidence. The directing authority has the discretion to opt for an investigative inquiry when they believe an investigation or a command-directed investigation (AR 15-6 Investigation) is not warranted. Command IGs can only direct and approve investigative inquiries with written authority from the respective directing authority. IGs who resolve allegations using this approach report their conclusions using a Report of Investigative Inquiry (ROII).

Purpose of an IG Administrative Investigation.

On the other hand, an IG investigation is a formal fact-finding examination conducted to investigate allegations, issues, or adverse conditions of a serious nature. Its purpose is to provide the directing authority with a solid foundation for decision-making and subsequent actions. IG administrative investigations involve a systematic collection and examination of evidence, including testimonies recorded under oath, documents, and sometimes physical evidence. Only the directing authority can authorize an IG investigation through a written and signed directive. The conclusions of IG investigations are reported using a Report of Investigation (ROI).

What is a Line of Duty (LOD) Administrative Investigation?

The Line of Duty (LOD) administrative investigation is conducted to examine the circumstances surrounding injuries, illnesses, diseases, or deaths of Soldiers. The standards, considerations, and procedures for LOD determinations and investigations are outlined in Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-4, Line of Duty Policy, Procedures, and Investigations (dated 12 November 2020). Chapter 3 of this regulation provides details about the LOD administrative investigation process. Typically, the Special Court-Martial Convening Authority (SPCMCA) or the brigade-level commander acts as the appointing authority for LOD investigations, while the General Court-Martial Convening Authority (GCMCA) or a two-star general serves as the approval authority. LOD investigations can be conducted in two forms: informal investigations or formal investigations.

What is an Informal Line of Duty (LOD) Investigation?

The unit commander, with the approval of the appointing authority, may choose to conduct an informal investigation if intentional misconduct or gross negligence is not suspected and a formal investigation is not deemed necessary. For informal investigations, the unit commander completes a DA Form 2173 (note that DD Form 261 is not used for informal investigations). By signing the form, the unit commander confirms that they have read the regulation, verified the Soldier’s duty status, and ensured the accuracy of all information provided in the investigation. An informal LOD investigation can result in two findings: “in the line of duty” (ILD) or “existed prior to service” (EPTS).

All informal LOD administrative investigations must be initiated within five calendar days of the command’s discovery of the injury, illness, disease, or death and should be completed within 60 days. During an informal investigation, the commander conducts the inquiry and gathers all relevant evidence. The investigation aims to establish dates, places, persons, and events as conclusively and accurately as possible to provide the approving authority with a clear understanding of the incident. The investigation should include the Soldier’s statement (or invocation of rights), law enforcement reports, medical records and opinions, and other pertinent evidence. Based on the gathered evidence, the commander determines whether the injury, illness, death, or disease was “in the line of duty” or “existed prior to service.” The report is then forwarded through legal channels to the approval authority for appropriate action. If the commander believes the incident was “not in the line of duty,” a formal administrative investigation becomes necessary.

What is a Formal Line of Duty (LOD) Investigation?

In a formal LOD administrative investigation, an Investigating Officer (IO) is appointed in writing by the appointing authority to thoroughly investigate the circumstances and collect all available evidence related to an incident. The IO must hold a commission of O2 rank or above or be a warrant officer senior in rank to the Soldier being investigated. The findings are documented on DD Form 261 and submitted through the responsible chain of command to the GCMCA, who serves as the approval authority. Formal administrative investigations are required in several situations, including those involving injuries, illnesses, diseases, or deaths under suspicious circumstances, intentional misconduct, gross negligence, alcohol or drug use, self-inflicted injuries or suspected suicide, AWOL incidents, injuries or deaths during initial Army acceptance, disabled USAR or ARNG Soldiers on orders for less than 30 days, and when directed by higher authorities.

Conducting a Formal LOD Administrative Investigation.

During a formal LOD administrative investigation, the IO conducts a thorough examination, collecting all relevant evidence before making findings and recommendations. The investigation aims to establish definitive and accurate details regarding dates, places, persons, and events. Providing an accurate understanding of the incident to the approving, reviewing, and approval authorities is crucial. The evidence gathered may include law enforcement reports, pertinent medical records, statements or invocations of rights from the Soldier, autopsy or toxicology reports, death certificates, witness statements, information about the Soldier’s background, statements from the command regarding the Soldier’s military background, mental health assessments, evidence of intoxication, and other relevant materials.

Completion of the Formal LOD Administrative Investigation.

After completing the administrative investigation, the IO presents their findings. If a “not in the line of duty” determination is made, the Soldier is given a reasonable opportunity to submit a rebuttal or response to the LOD, typically within 30 days. If a response is received, the IO or subsequent reviewer considers it along with all previously collected evidence before finalizing the findings. The LOD and the Soldier’s rebuttal or response then undergo legal review before being routed through the chain of command to the approval authority, who takes appropriate action based on the LOD.

What is a Safety and Accident Investigation?

A Safety and Accident Investigation is . . . .

What is a Preliminary Inquiry (Administrative Investigation)?

A Preliminary Inquiry administrative investigation serves as an informal investigation aimed at achieving several objectives. These objectives encompass assessing the extent of a problem, locating and interviewing witnesses, and documenting their testimonies in a concise manner. Additionally, a Preliminary Inquiry aims to determine whether a more comprehensive investigation is warranted and, if necessary, assists in defining the scope of such an investigation.

It is important to note that the procedural requirements applicable to an administrative investigation or board do not apply to a Preliminary Inquiry, even though it may lead to the appointment of an administrative investigation in certain cases.

In accordance with RCM 303 of the MCM, a Preliminary Inquiry, sometimes referred to as a “commander’s inquiry,” may fulfill the preliminary inquiry requirement of commander to investigate reports of misconduct in their command. However, if adverse information arises during the preliminary inquiry for officers holding the rank of O1 and above, the appointment of an administrative investigation or board becomes mandatory.

What is a SHARP Program Administrative Investigation?

A Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention (SHARP) administrative investigation involves thoroughly examining allegations of sexual assault or sexual harassment. These two types of investigations are approached differently. Instances of sexual assault are required to be handled by a Military Criminal Investigation Organization (MCIO), specifically the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) in the Army, without exception. Commanders will not initiate any AR 15-6 investigation into reports of sexual assault and will contact their servicing legal office for consultation if it is unclear whether a reported act is sexual harassment or sexual assault. Conversely, allegations of sexual harassment can be addressed through a command directed investigation, such as a 15-6 Investigation, or a criminal investigation conducted by a law enforcement agency, depending on the specific nature of the allegations.

What are the Types of Sexual Harassment Investigations?

There are two categories of sexual harassment administrative investigations: those within the SHARP program and those outside of it. If a complainant consciously or inadvertently chooses to bypass the SHARP program, the investigation is treated as an ordinary command directed investigation, typically conducted in accordance with AR 15-6. While it is highly encouraged to process sexual harassment complaints through the chain of command and the Sexual Assault Response Coordinator (SARC) using the SHARP program, it is not the sole avenue available for Soldiers or family members to resolve issues or seek guidance on addressing sexual harassment. Commanders are not allowed to prevent Soldiers from seeking guidance from alternative agencies to directly address sexual harassment. Concerns raised and resolved outside of the SHARP program by the complainant or another organization or individual are considered problem resolution or leadership actions, rather than formal sexual harassment complaints.

What is a Sexual Harassment Investigation in Accordance with the SHARP Program?

The SHARP Program provides multiple avenues for Soldiers to formally address a sexual harassment complaint. They can submit a written complaint using DA Form 7746, approach the full-time brigade-level Sexual Assault Response Coordinator (SARC) informally, or choose to remain anonymous. Depending on the chosen method, the command will take appropriate action.

When a formal complaint is filed utilizing DA Form 7746, the brigade commander initiates an administrative investigation. The findings of this investigation determine the appropriate disposition and resolution, which are addressed at the command level. All relevant details of the complaint processing are meticulously documented in the Sexual Harassment Integrated Case Reporting System (ICRS), a comprehensive database that catalogues information pertaining to reports of sexual harassment.

In cases of informal reporting, the accuser and/or the full-time brigade SARC work together to address and resolve the complaint at the lowest possible level. This resolution process involves documenting the details in the ICRS and filing a memorandum of record at the local level.

The purpose of filing an informal complaint is to prompt an immediate cessation of the offending behavior without necessitating further action.

Furthermore, when a complaint is received from an unknown or unidentified source, it is considered an anonymous complaint. Such complaints are referred to the subject’s brigade commander for evaluation, and the relevant information is entered into the ICRS database. The administrative investigations of sexual harassment within the SHARP Program adhere to the guidelines outlined in AR 600-20, Chapter 7, and Army Directive 2022-13 (Reforms to Counter Sexual Harassment/Sexual Assault in the Army).

How can the Law Office of Will M. Helixon Assist a Soldier Who is the Subject of an Administrative Investigation?

In most administrative investigations, there is always some degree of due process.  Whether it is being provided notice of a board hearing and the right to personal appearance where they can cross-examine witnesses, or whether the Soldier is only asked to provide a statement to an IO in an administrative investigation, such actions will not take place without notice to the Soldier and an opportunity to hire a military lawyer.  When facing an administrative investigation where you are requested to provide a sworn statement, and the subsequent filing of adverse findings in the Army Adverse Information Program database, it is critical that you seek the sound advice of experienced military lawyers.  At the Law Office of Will M. Helixon we stand ready to apply our years of collective experience in working with administrative investigations to assist you in cooperating with the investigation and serving as a liaison with the Investigating Officer.  In the event there are adverse information findings, we will expertly assist you in providing the best and most comprehensive reply possible. Knowing how to respond is what we do, day in and day out. If you want an experienced, dedicated, military attorney, who has decades of experience working on military law issues including handling administrative investigations and adverse administrative actions, contact one of the military lawyers at the Law Office of Will M. Helixon for an immediate consultation.  Not only will we assist you in cooperating with the administrative investigation and the IO, we will help shape the investigation by presenting evidence and analysis to the IO.  If there are adverse findings, we will analyze your case, and develop the best possible response to keep you in the Army at your current rank with your continued entitlements and benefits of military service.  When your retirement, worth millions of dollars over your lifetime, is on the line, don’t gamble on your legal representation.  Call the Law Office of Will M. Helixon today.  Will M. Helixon and John Caulwell, with over 45 years of combined military experience, are ready to assist you today.  We will develop a strategy to keep you in the fight, and serve our nation, until you decide it is time to retire.  Control your own destiny.  Call us today.

More about the Law Office of Will M. Helixon.

Will M. Helixon established the Law Office of Will M. Helixon in February of 2016.  Originally headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri, the firm’s original mission was to defend members of the military in courts-martial, adverse administrative proceedings and other criminal proceedings. Today, the firm has worked as military lawyers in multiple complex and high-profile military cases.  The firm now handles most military matters, including medical issues involving the MEB/PEB process, adverse administrative matters, military justice matters including Nonjudicial Punishment, Administrative Separation Boards, and Boards of Inquiry, and legal assistance matters, including rebutting GOMORs, responding to QMP Boards, fighting attempts to revoke Soldier’s security clearances, and submitting matters for the correction of military records.  The firm also assists officers navigate the minefield of findings of adverse information (AAIP) in AR 15-6 Investigations (command directed investigations), Selection Boards (Promotion Boards), Special Selection Boards, and Special Selection Review Boards (SSRB).  No longer in Kansas City, the firm now has European offices physically located in Vilseck, Germany and in Wiesbaden, Germany.  Call us today to assist with your legal issue in Europe, Germany, or the United States.  All military lawyers at the Law Office of Will M. Helixon maintain licenses to practice before all military trial courts.