Military Command-Directed Investigations: What Happens During an Army AR 15-6 Investigation?

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

In the Army, these investigations are commonly conducted under Army Regulation 15-6, Procedures for Preliminary Inquiries, Administrative Investigations, and Boards of Officers. The regulation was substantially revised effective June 22, 2025, replacing the prior 2016 version that is still referenced by many older online resources. AR 15-6 allows commanders and other authorized officials to investigate allegations, gather and preserve evidence, make factual findings, and recommend action.

Although an AR 15-6 investigation is administrative rather than criminal, that does not mean it is inconsequential. The evidence and findings from an investigation can later be used in adverse administrative actions against a Soldier, and an administrative inquiry may also lead to a criminal investigation when the evidence warrants it. AR 15-6 expressly permits evidence gathered during an investigation to be used in later administrative action, subject to applicable procedural protections.

For a Servicemember whose conduct is being examined, understanding the investigation early can matter significantly. Decisions made during the investigative stage, like whether to provide a statement, what evidence to identify, what documents to preserve, and whether important witnesses or context have been overlooked, may influence the factual record long before a GOMOR, adverse evaluation, separation action, or other personnel decision is ever initiated.

What Is a Command-Directed Investigation?

The terminology varies between military services.

In the Army, the most common command investigation is an administrative investigation conducted under AR 15-6, however each service describes due process guidelines and protections in their respective regulations. The Army regulation recognizes three principal fact-finding procedures:

• Preliminary inquiries

• Administrative investigations

• Boards of officers

AR 15-6 states that these procedures are used to examine allegations or issues within an organization, gather facts, maintain good order and discipline, assist leaders in making informed decisions, and determine appropriate follow-on action.

The Department of the Air Force uses the formal term Commander Directed Investigation, or CDI, under DAFMAN 1-101. The Navy and Marine Corps use procedures under the JAGMAN, including preliminary inquiries and command investigations. Because the procedural rights and terminology do differ by service, this article focuses primarily on Army AR 15-6 investigations.

What Is an AR 15-6 Investigation?

An AR 15-6 administrative investigation is a fact-finding process.

Under the current regulation, its purpose is to:

• ascertain facts;

• document and preserve evidence;

• provide the approval authority with a comprehensive examination of the relevant facts and circumstances; and

• make recommendations when required by the appointing authority.

A commander at any level may appoint an administrative investigation concerning matters within that commander's responsibility. Certain staff officers and supervisors also possess appointment authority. The appointment of a full administrative investigation must be made in writing. AR 15-6, paras. 5-1 and 5-2.

The investigating officer, commonly called the IO, must be directed to ascertain and consider the relevant evidence, act thoroughly and impartially, make findings and recommendations warranted by the evidence, comply with the appointing authority's instructions, and report the results to the approval authority.

What Is the Difference Between a Preliminary Inquiry and an AR 15-6 Investigation?

A preliminary inquiry is generally a less formal initial fact-finding process. It may be used to determine the magnitude of a problem, identify witnesses, obtain initial statements, preserve evidence, and determine whether a more extensive investigation is necessary. A preliminary inquiry may even be appointed verbally and does not have to follow all of the procedural requirements applicable to a full administrative investigation. AR 15-6, chap. 4.

If the matter warrants further examination, the command can proceed to a formal administrative investigation. Importantly, if a preliminary inquiry develops adverse information concerning a commissioned officer, the current AR 15-6 generally requires an administrative investigation before an adverse finding against that officer is finalized.

Am I a Witness, Subject, Suspect, or Respondent?

These terms matter.

A witness is someone from whom the investigating officer seeks information.

A subject, under AR 15-6, is a person about whom credible evidence exists indicating involvement in the matter under investigation in circumstances where disciplinary or administrative action may follow, the person's rights or privileges may be affected, or the person's reputation or professional standing may be jeopardized. Significantly, being a subject does not necessarily mean the command believes you committed a crime.

A suspect is different. AR 15-6 defines a suspect as a person about whom credible information exists indicating that the person committed a particular criminal offense.

A respondent is ordinarily associated with the more formal board-of-officers process. Respondents receive significantly greater procedural protections, including rights concerning representation, evidence, witnesses, and participation in the hearing.

One of the first issues worth understanding when contacted by an investigating officer is therefore why the IO wants to speak with you and what your status actually is. A Soldier may begin an investigation as a witness and later become a subject or suspect as additional information develops.

Will I Be Flagged During an AR 15-6 Investigation?

If you are an Army Soldier designated as a subject or suspect of an investigation, or as a respondent in a board, a Flag is generally required. This is generally the most common way a suspect finds out they are a suspect… they will be brought in by leadership and counseled as well as flagged.

AR 600-8-2 designates this as Flag code L, “Commander's investigation.” The regulation interprets “investigation” broadly and specifically includes preliminary inquiries and administrative investigations conducted under AR 15-6. A Soldier who initially participates only as a witness must also be flagged if evidence later causes that Soldier to become a subject or suspect. AR 600-8-2, para. 2-2g.

The current AR 15-6 independently reinforces this requirement: once a preliminary inquiry, administrative investigation, or board is initiated, subjects and respondents are to be flagged in accordance with AR 600-8-2.

A Flag is an administrative suspension of favorable personnel actions; it is not itself punishment. Depending on the Soldier's circumstances, however, a Flag can affect personnel actions while the investigation remains unresolved.

What Standard of Proof Does an AR 15-6 Investigating Officer Use?

The standard is preponderance of the evidence.

Under the current AR 15-6, an allegation is substantiated when the greater weight of credible evidence makes it more likely than not that the alleged events occurred. AR 15-6, para. 1-9.

This is a substantially lower standard than the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard used to convict someone at a court-martial.

But “preponderance” does not mean the investigating officer simply counts witnesses.

AR 15-6 specifically instructs the factfinder to evaluate such considerations as:

• witness credibility;

• opportunity to observe or know the relevant facts;

• bias or motive;

• intent;

• ability to accurately recall events;

• corroborating or contradictory evidence; and

• reasonable inferences supported by proven facts.

The regulation expressly states that a larger quantity of less credible evidence should not outweigh a smaller amount of more credible evidence. That makes the quality and context of the evidence important. A useful response to an investigation may therefore involve more than simply telling “your side.” Documentary records, contemporaneous messages, timelines, regulations, photographs, witness testimony, and evidence affecting credibility can sometimes be more important than the number of statements collected.

What Evidence Can an AR 15-6 Investigating Officer Consider?

AR 15-6 investigations are administrative proceedings, so the investigating officer generally is not bound by the same evidentiary rules that govern a court-martial (this means they can generally consider a lot more things than a court-martial can).

The regulation permits consideration of relevant and material information that a reasonable person would consider appropriate, including records, prior statements, law-enforcement reports, counseling documents, and other documentary evidence. There are nevertheless important limits. For example, AR 15-6 protects recognized privileged communications, including applicable attorney-client, clergy, spousal, psychotherapist-patient, and victim-advocate privileges. Certain unlawfully obtained evidence and other categories of information are also subject to specific restrictions. The investigating officer must ultimately tie the findings to evidence contained in the investigative record. The current regulation also requires findings to identify the evidence supporting them and, when reasonable competing conclusions exist, explain why the conclusion selected is more credible and probable than the alternatives. AR 15-6, para. 3-7.

For someone facing a potentially adverse finding, this is an important distinction: the issue is not merely whether unfavorable information exists, but whether the investigative record actually supports each element of the conclusion the IO is proposing to make.

Can I Be Ordered to Speak to the Investigating Officer?

Military personnel under Army authority can generally be ordered to appear and provide information, but they cannot be compelled to incriminate themselves. AR 15-6 provides that commanders may order military personnel under their authority to appear and testify, subject to constitutional and Article 31 protections. If the questions could incriminate the Soldier, however, a different rule applies.

Article 31 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice prohibits compelling a person to incriminate himself or herself. It further requires that a person suspected of an offense be informed of the nature of the accusation, advised that the person does not have to make a statement concerning that offense, and warned that any statement may be used as evidence in a court-martial. 10 U.S.C. § 831.

AR 15-6 reinforces those protections. A Soldier suspected of a UCMJ offense must receive Article 31 warnings before being questioned about that suspected offense: this is done on a DA 3881. If the Soldier requests an attorney, the regulation requires that the Soldier receive a reasonable amount of time to consult counsel before answering those questions. No adverse inference may be drawn from invocation of Article 31 or Fifth Amendment rights. AR 15-6, para. 3-13d(7).

Whether to provide a statement can therefore be a significant decision. In some investigations, a detailed interview may allow a Soldier to correct factual misunderstandings before they become findings. In others, particularly where criminal exposure exists, speaking without first understanding the legal implications may create unnecessary risk. The correct approach depends on the allegations, the Soldier's status, the available evidence, and the potential downstream consequences. This is one of the most important roles of an attorney during this process.

Do I Have a Right to an Attorney During an AR 15-6 Investigation?

Yes. A servicemember may retain a private civilian attorney to advise and represent them during an AR 15-6 investigation. This can be valuable even when the investigation is administrative and no criminal allegation has been made.

AR 15-6, paragraph 3-10, states that a subject of an investigation is not automatically entitled to representation by counsel. That language addresses the rights the Army is required to provide under the regulation. Unlike a respondent in a formal board of officers, an ordinary subject of an administrative investigation is not automatically entitled to have the Army appoint counsel or to receive all of the procedural rights afforded to a board respondent. It does not prevent a subject from retaining civilian counsel at the subject's own expense.

Private counsel can assist a servicemember throughout the investigative process by helping to determine the servicemember's status, analyzing the allegations and applicable regulatory standards, identifying potentially favorable evidence and witnesses, preparing the servicemember for an interview, advising whether and how to provide a statement, communicating with the investigating officer or command when appropriate, and preparing submissions or rebuttal matters.

Should I Give the Investigating Officer Evidence or Names of Witnesses?

Potentially. An IO is required to conduct a fair and impartial investigation and to consider evidence on the relevant issues. The current regulation also requires the IO to support each finding with evidence included in the investigative record. But an investigating officer cannot consider evidence he or she does not know exists. If documents, witnesses, messages, policies, or other records materially change the factual picture, identifying those items during the investigation can sometimes prevent an incomplete evidentiary record from hardening into an adverse finding.

The analysis should be deliberate rather than reflexive. Providing every available document is not necessarily helpful, and submitting material without understanding how it fits into the allegations may create additional issues. The useful question is generally: What fact does this evidence establish, and why does that fact matter to the allegation being investigated?

How Does the Investigating Officer Decide Whether an Allegation Is Substantiated?

The IO makes written findings. A finding must be supported by the evidence and must address the applicable legal or regulatory standard. For example, if an allegation involves violation of a particular Army regulation, the IO must analyze whether the evidence actually establishes the relevant requirements of that regulation. When the evidence reasonably supports competing conclusions, the current AR 15-6 requires the investigating officer to explain why the adopted finding is more credible and more probable than the alternative conclusion. The IO may also make recommendations. Those recommendations must logically flow from the findings and must be feasible, acceptable, and suitable. The IO's recommendations are not necessarily the final decision. The approval authority may approve, disapprove, or modify findings and recommendations, order additional investigation, and… unless another regulation provides otherwise… is generally not bound by the IO's recommendation.

What Happens If the Investigation Makes an Adverse Finding Against Me?

That depends in part on your status and what the command intends to do with the finding.

For commissioned officers, the 2025 AR 15-6 contains particularly important protections.

When an administrative investigation contains adverse information concerning a commissioned officer, the relevant portion of the investigation and supporting evidence must generally be referred to that officer before final approval of the adverse finding. The referral must provide meaningful information sufficient for the officer to respond.

The officer must receive at least 10 business days to respond. The response may include:

• a rebuttal memorandum;

• documentary evidence;

• other relevant information; and

• letters of support.

The rebuttal does not simply disappear into the file. AR 15-6 requires the IO to reconsider the findings and recommendations in light of the response and either modify them or document whether the rebuttal changed the IO's conclusions. The approval authority must then consider the response before taking final action. AR 15-6, paras. 5-4 and 5-5.

This can be a particularly important stage of the case. A well-developed rebuttal can focus the decision-maker on evidentiary gaps, credibility problems, regulatory errors, competing interpretations of the facts, and evidence that the initial investigation did not adequately address.

What Rights Do Enlisted Soldiers Have Before the Investigation Is Used Against Them?

The rules are somewhat different.

The special adverse-information referral provisions in AR 15-6, paragraphs 5-4 and 5-5, are primarily directed at commissioned officers. But AR 15-6 separately establishes minimum procedural safeguards when the Army intends to use investigation results as the basis for adverse administrative action against a Soldier.

Unless another regulation supplies its own procedural protections, the Soldier must generally receive:

1. written notice of the proposed adverse action;

2. the relevant findings, recommendations, and supporting evidence, appropriately redacted;

3. a reasonable opportunity to respond in writing and submit rebuttal matters; and

4. consideration of that response before final action.

For Regular Army Soldiers, AR 15-6 establishes no less than 10 business days to respond. For Army National Guard and Army Reserve Soldiers, the regulation generally provides 20 business days. If another regulation governing the particular adverse action provides greater procedural protection, the more stringent safeguards control. AR 15-6, para. 3-4.

That means the end of the investigation is often not the end of the opportunity to respond. The particular follow-on action: GOMOR, separation, adverse evaluation, relief for cause, or another personnel action, trigger additional procedural rights of its own.

Can an AR 15-6 Investigation Lead to a GOMOR, Separation, or Other Adverse Action?

Yes.

AR 15-6 expressly provides that evidence gathered during an inquiry, administrative investigation, or board may be used in adverse administrative action against an individual.

Depending on the findings and the Soldier's status, possible consequences can include matters such as:

• a memorandum of reprimand;

• adverse evaluation;

• relief for cause;

• administrative separation;

• officer elimination or show-cause proceedings;

• nonjudicial punishment or other military-justice action when warranted;

• command or assignment consequences; and

• other administrative personnel actions.

Not every substantiated allegation results in formal adverse action. The approval authority remains responsible for deciding what action, if any, should follow.

For that reason, the investigation itself deserves attention. By the time a later adverse action is initiated, the investigative findings may already have established the factual narrative upon which the command intends to rely.

What Is the Army Adverse Information Program (AAIP), and Why Does It Matter for Officers?

For officers, substantiated findings can have consequences even when the command does not immediately issue a GOMOR or initiate separation.

AR 15-6 establishes the Army Adverse Information Program (AAIP) to satisfy requirements that certain officer promotion and command-selection boards receive credible adverse information.

Under the current regulation, approved adverse findings from administrative investigations must be entered into the AAIP for commissioned officers O-1 and above, excluding warrant officers. The entry occurs after the adverse findings are approved and is not supposed to be delayed merely because a separate administrative action has not yet been completed. AR 15-6, para. 3-17.

This makes the investigation itself especially important for officers. An adverse finding may have significance independent of any later GOMOR or disciplinary action.

Can I Challenge an AR 15-6 Finding After the Investigation Is Complete?

In some circumstances.

The 2025 AR 15-6 expressly permits a subject, suspect, or respondent to request reconsideration of findings based on:

• newly discovered evidence;

• a mistake of law;

• a mistake of fact; or

• administrative error.

Ordinarily, the request must be submitted within one year after the approval authority approves the investigation, although the approval authority may consider a later request for good cause.

There are important limitations.

A reconsideration request is generally unavailable when the investigation has already resulted in an administrative, nonjudicial, or judicial action—or another action possessing its own due-process safeguards. Additionally, evidence that simply could have been provided during the original investigation is generally not treated as “new evidence.”

That limitation underscores why developing the factual record during the original investigation can matter. Waiting until after an adverse finding is approved may significantly narrow the available options.

How Long Should an AR 15-6 Investigation Take?

There is no universal deadline for every investigation.

The current AR 15-6 nevertheless instructs appointing authorities to ensure investigations are completed in a timely manner. Unless another regulation establishes a specific deadline, the regulation states that “timely” generally means no more than 30 business days, although complexity and other circumstances may justify additional time.

Investigations can therefore last longer than 30 business days when extensions are appropriate.

A lengthy investigation does not necessarily mean the allegation has been substantiated or that the command has already decided the outcome.

Can the Investigating Officer Be Biased?

The regulation requires impartiality.

AR 15-6 requires an investigating officer to be impartial, unbiased, and objective. An individual who knows facts suggesting that an IO lacks impartiality or is otherwise disqualified may bring those facts to the appointing authority.

The regulation also addresses conflicts involving the appointing authority. A person who is reasonably likely to become a witness may not appoint the investigation, and a person with an actual or perceived bias or conflict concerning the outcome generally should forward the matter to the next superior authority. AR 15-6, para. 3-19.

Not every disagreement with an IO's questions or conclusions establishes bias. But actual conflicts, prejudgment, failure to pursue material evidence, or departures from required procedure may be relevant when evaluating the reliability or legal sufficiency of an investigation.

What Should I Do If I Learn I Am the Subject of a Command Investigation?

First, determine exactly what kind of investigation is occurring.

Obtain or identify, to the extent available:

• the regulation governing the investigation;

• your status as witness, subject, suspect, or respondent;

• the nature of the allegations;

• whether you are flagged;

• whether criminal misconduct is potentially implicated; and

• whether the investigating officer is requesting a written or oral statement.

Preserve potentially relevant evidence. Emails, text messages, photographs, calendars, orders, policy documents, counseling records, electronic communications, and witness information can become significantly harder to reconstruct months later.

Avoid discussing the substance of the investigation casually with potential witnesses. AR 15-6 allows investigating officers to take steps intended to prevent witnesses from influencing one another's testimony.

Most importantly, treat the investigation as the stage at which the factual record is being created, not merely as preliminary paperwork before the “real” adverse action begins.

An attorney reviewing a command investigation early may be able to help identify the applicable regulatory standard, evaluate Article 31 concerns, determine what evidence is missing, identify inconsistencies in the government's evidence, and decide whether and how information should be presented before the IO reaches a final conclusion.