Army Adverse Information Program (AAIP): What Officers Need to Know

By Natalia Helmsing | Helmsing Military Law, PLLC
Updated September 2026

An officer can complete a command investigation without receiving an Article 15, GOMOR, or Board of Inquiry and still face significant career consequences.

The reason is the Army Adverse Information Program, commonly called AAIP.

Under the current AR 15-6, effective June 22, 2025, substantiated adverse findings from administrative investigations must be entered into the AAIP database for Army commissioned officers in the grade of O-1 and above. Warrant officers are excluded from this particular AAIP requirement. The program exists to provide certain Department of the Army selection boards, including officer promotion selection boards and command select list boards, with qualifying adverse information.

Perhaps most importantly, the Army does not wait to see whether the command later issues a GOMOR, initiates a Board of Inquiry, or takes some other adverse action. AR 15-6 provides that an AAIP entry is made after the investigation contains an approved adverse finding, and that entry should not be unduly delayed while a later administrative action is completed.

For an officer who is the subject of an investigation, that makes the investigative finding itself extremely important.

What Is the Army Adverse Information Program?

AAIP is the Army's system for recording qualifying adverse findings concerning commissioned officers and making that information available when required for certain officer selection processes.

AR 15-6 describes AAIP as a system designed to satisfy statutory requirements concerning adverse information considered by Department of the Army selection boards. It requires substantiated adverse findings from administrative investigations to be entered for commissioned officers O-1 and above.

The statutory rules are particularly significant in the promotion context.

For Regular officers, 10 U.S.C. § 615 requires certain promotion selection boards to receive credible adverse information, including substantiated adverse findings from officially documented investigations or inquiries. Congress also requires the members of those boards to consider qualifying adverse information when determining whether an officer is among those best qualified for promotion. Comparable requirements apply to Reserve Component promotion boards under 10 U.S.C. §§ 14107 and 14108.

Not every AAIP entry is necessarily presented to every selection board. Which information must be furnished depends on the type of board, the officer's component and grade, and the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. The critical point is that AAIP creates a mechanism through which an approved investigative finding can continue to matter even when it is not visible as a GOMOR or other document in the officer's ordinary personnel record.

What Counts as “Adverse Information”?

Department of Defense policy defines adverse information as a substantiated adverse finding or conclusion from an officially documented investigation or inquiry, or other credible information of an adverse nature.

For information to qualify as credible under that policy, it must be resolved and supported by a preponderance of the evidence. To be adverse, it must be derogatory, unfavorable, or reflect clearly unacceptable conduct, integrity, or judgment.

The DoD definition also excludes some relatively minor matters. For example, certain minor motor vehicle violations and minor infractions that did not negatively affect the individual or good order and discipline, and that resulted in no more than nonpunitive rehabilitative counseling, are not ordinarily treated as adverse information under the policy.

For AAIP purposes, however, the most important practical rule is straightforward:

The Army does not enter an administrative investigation into AAIP merely because an allegation was made. There must first be an approved adverse finding.

That distinction is why the period before approval can be so consequential.

Why Does an Adverse Finding Matter Even if I Never Receive a GOMOR?

A common misconception is that an investigation is relatively harmless unless the command follows it with formal adverse action. AAIP makes that assumption dangerous for commissioned officers.

An investigating officer may substantiate an allegation, while the command ultimately decides that a GOMOR, Article 15, or elimination action is unnecessary. The approved adverse finding can nevertheless qualify for entry into AAIP. AR 15-6 specifically directs that AAIP entry should not be delayed while subsequent adverse administrative action is being finalized.

In other words, an officer cannot necessarily measure the significance of an investigation by asking only:

“Did I receive a GOMOR?”

The better question may be:

“Was an adverse finding against me approved?”

That finding can have relevance to future promotion and command-selection decisions even when the officer otherwise continues serving successfully.

When Does an Officer Have an Opportunity to Respond?

The current AR 15-6 provides significant procedural protections before an adverse finding concerning a commissioned officer becomes final, and this is where getting it right is critical.

If an investigating officer contemplates making an adverse finding against a commissioned officer, the IO must first give the officer an opportunity to be interviewed.

If the investigation ultimately contains an adverse finding concerning a commissioned officer, the relevant portion of the investigation and supporting evidence must then be referred to the officer before the approval authority takes final action.

The officer must receive enough information to provide a meaningful response and must generally receive at least 10 business days to submit rebuttal matters. Reasonable extension requests should be granted for good cause when additional time is necessary to gather evidence and prepare the response.

The officer may submit a rebuttal memorandum, additional documentary evidence, letters of support, and other information relevant to the proposed finding.

Critically, this is not merely an opportunity to place a disagreement into the record after the decision has already been made.

AR 15-6 requires the rebuttal to go back to the investigating officer. The IO must reconsider the proposed findings and recommendations in light of the response, then either change them or document whether the rebuttal affected the conclusions. The approval authority must also consider the officer's response and may approve, modify, or disapprove the relevant findings.

That makes the rebuttal stage a genuine opportunity to affect whether an adverse finding ever becomes final.

Why Is It So Important to Address the Investigation Before the Finding Is Approved?

Because AAIP entry follows the approved finding.

Once an adverse finding is approved, AR 15-6 requires qualifying findings to be entered into the AAIP database. The Army does not require the command to wait until another adverse personnel action is completed.

This creates a meaningful difference between defending an officer before approval and attempting to undo an adverse finding afterward.

Before approval, the officer has an express opportunity to challenge the evidence, correct factual mistakes, identify contradictory evidence, address credibility problems, explain regulatory requirements, and persuade both the IO and the approval authority that the proposed finding is not supported.

After approval, the options become narrower.

AR 15-6 permits an officer to request reconsideration of an approved investigative finding based on new evidence, mistake of law, mistake of fact, or administrative error. Ordinarily, the request must be submitted within one year. But the regulation specifically states that evidence which could have been provided during the original investigation is not considered “new evidence” merely because it was omitted the first time. Reconsideration may also be unavailable when the investigation has already resulted in an administrative, nonjudicial, or judicial action that has its own procedural safeguards.

That is a significant reason not to treat the initial investigation or adverse-information rebuttal as something that can easily be fixed later.

How Can an Attorney Help Before an AAIP Finding Is Approved?

Effective representation should begin with the underlying investigation, not the AAIP database entry.

By the time information is entered into AAIP, the important factual decision has usually already occurred. The objective is therefore to identify and address problems before an adverse finding becomes final.

Experienced military counsel can evaluate whether the evidence actually satisfies the applicable legal or regulatory standard, identify factual gaps or inconsistent witness accounts, locate relevant documents or witnesses, prepare the officer for the required interview, analyze whether Article 31 or other rights are implicated, and develop the written response to a proposed adverse finding.

This can matter because AR 15-6 requires findings to be supported by a preponderance of credible evidence, and it requires investigating officers to weigh credibility, bias, motive, opportunity for knowledge, contradictory evidence, and other circumstances when resolving disputed facts.

A strong rebuttal therefore should not simply state that the officer disagrees with the investigation.

It should identify why the proposed finding is factually, legally, or procedurally unsupportable, and give the IO and approval authority a reasoned basis to change it before approval.

For an officer whose promotion or command opportunities may eventually be affected by an adverse finding, preventing an unsupported finding from becoming final can be considerably more effective than trying to repair the record years later.

Can an Attorney Represent Me During the Investigation?

Yes.

An officer may retain civilian military counsel to advise and represent the officer during an administrative investigation. The value of representation can begin well before the formal rebuttal stage.

An attorney may assist in understanding the scope of the investigation, determining whether the officer is a witness, subject, or suspect, reviewing the governing regulations, preparing for an investigative interview, identifying evidence that should be considered by the IO, and evaluating whether submitting a statement or other information is strategically appropriate.

When criminal misconduct may be implicated, AR 15-6 also provides that a Soldier suspected of a UCMJ offense must receive Article 31 warnings before questioning about that offense and, if counsel is requested, must be given a reasonable opportunity to consult an attorney before answering.

For commissioned officers, the regulation separately requires an opportunity to be interviewed before an IO makes an adverse finding. How the officer approaches that interview can materially affect the factual record on which the eventual finding is based.

Can an AAIP Entry Affect Promotion?

Yes, depending on the officer's grade, component, and the particular selection process.

Congress requires qualifying adverse information to be furnished to specified promotion boards. For Regular officers, 10 U.S.C. § 615 requires certain boards to receive credible adverse information and requires board members to consider that information when determining whether an officer is among those best qualified for promotion.

Reserve Component officers are subject to parallel statutory requirements under 10 U.S.C. §§ 14107 and 14108.

AR 15-6 also expressly identifies officer promotion selection boards and command select list boards as selection processes served by AAIP.

Adverse information can also become important after an officer has already been selected for promotion. Federal law permits promotion delays when an officer is under investigation or when substantiated adverse information material to the appointment is being reviewed. It also provides mechanisms for review when adverse information emerges after a promotion board has recommended an officer.

For Reserve officers, similar statutory provisions permit promotion delay and special selection review when qualifying adverse information arises.

Is AAIP the Same Thing as Having a GOMOR in Your AMHRR?

No.

A GOMOR filing decision and an AAIP entry arise through different regulatory processes.

A GOMOR may be locally filed or placed in the performance portion of the AMHRR under AR 600-37. AAIP, by contrast, is a separate Army adverse-information system tied to approved investigative findings and selection-board requirements.

An officer can therefore have an AAIP issue even when the command does not permanently file a GOMOR.

This distinction is one of the reasons officers should pay close attention to the actual findings of an investigation, rather than focusing only on whatever follow-on administrative action the command ultimately chooses to take.

Can an AAIP Entry Be Removed or Corrected?

Potentially, but the appropriate mechanism depends on why the entry is incorrect.

Appendix D of AR 15-6 authorizes the Office of The Judge Advocate General's Administrative Law Division to modify, amend, or remove an erroneous AAIP entry when the portal does not accurately reflect the approved findings or disposition of the underlying investigation. The regulation also provides for updating or deleting an AAIP entry when a commander grants reconsideration that changes the underlying finding.

If the problem is not merely an inaccurate database entry, but the underlying approved investigative finding itself, the officer generally must address that underlying finding.

AR 15-6 provides a reconsideration process in certain circumstances involving new evidence, mistake of fact, mistake of law, or administrative error.

Depending on the case and the officer's status, additional administrative remedies may ultimately be available as well. But correcting an established finding later can be more difficult than preventing an unsupported finding from being approved in the first place.

Frequently Asked Questions About AAIP

Does every allegation against an officer go into AAIP?

No. AR 15-6 states that no AAIP entry is made until there are approved adverse findings from an administrative investigation. An allegation by itself is not an approved adverse finding.

Who is covered by AAIP?

AR 15-6 requires substantiated adverse findings from administrative investigations to be entered into AAIP for Army commissioned officers O-1 and above. The requirement does not apply to warrant officers.

Does the command have to issue a GOMOR before an investigation goes into AAIP?

No. AAIP entry follows the approved adverse investigative finding. AR 15-6 specifically says entry should not be unduly delayed while subsequent adverse administrative action is finalized.

Do I get to rebut an adverse finding before it is approved?

Commissioned officers must be given notice and an opportunity to respond before the approval authority takes final action on an adverse finding. The officer generally receives at least 10 business days, and the IO must reconsider the finding in light of the rebuttal.

Can the approval authority reject the investigating officer's finding?

Yes. After considering the investigation and the officer's rebuttal, the approval authority may approve, modify, or disapprove relevant findings or recommendations.

Can AAIP affect command selection as well as promotion?

Yes. AR 15-6 specifically identifies both officer promotion selection boards and command select list boards as selection processes associated with AAIP. The precise rules governing what information is provided depend on the particular board.

Facing an Adverse Finding or AAIP Referral?

For commissioned officers, an administrative investigation can have consequences even when it never results in a GOMOR, Article 15, or Board of Inquiry.

The critical event may be the approval of the adverse finding itself.

Once qualifying adverse findings are approved, AR 15-6 requires them to be entered into AAIP, and the Army does not ordinarily wait for later administrative actions to conclude before making that entry.

That makes early, competent representation particularly important. The strongest opportunity to protect an officer's future record is often while the investigation is still being developed, and again when the officer receives the formal opportunity to rebut a proposed adverse finding.

Helmsing Military Law represents Army officers facing command investigations, adverse-information referrals, AAIP issues, GOMORs, Boards of Inquiry, and related military administrative actions. With more than a decade of military-law experience, the firm focuses on identifying evidentiary, regulatory, and procedural weaknesses before an adverse finding becomes part of an officer's long-term record.

If you have learned that an investigating officer is considering an adverse finding, or you have received an AR 15-6 adverse-information referral, the response period is an opportunity to challenge the finding before it is approved and entered into AAIP.

Schedule a confidential consultation to discuss the investigation, the proposed findings, and the available response strategy.

This article provides general information concerning Army administrative law and does not constitute legal advice for any individual case. AAIP requirements and selection-board consequences may vary based on component, grade, type of investigation, selection process, and other applicable law and policy. Reading this article or contacting the firm does not by itself create an attorney-client relationship.