AR 15-6 Investigations — When You Need One

// 01The regulation, verbatim

Subject — credible evidence exists to believe that the person is involved... such that disciplinary or administrative action may follow

AR 15-6 Glossary, p.61

Notify the Soldier, in writing... provide a redacted... copy... Give the Soldier a reasonable opportunity, no less than 10 business days [20 for ARNG/USAR], to reply, in writing, and to submit rebuttal matters... Review and evaluate any matters submitted.

AR 15-6 ¶3-4d, p.7

AR 623-3... prescribes that the referral procedures specified in AR 15-6 will be followed before initiating or directing a relief for cause, if the relief is contemplated based on an AR 15-6 investigation.

AR 15-6 ¶3-4e, p.7

No military witnesses or military respondents will be compelled to incriminate themselves... A Soldier who is suspected of an offense under the UCMJ will be advised of his or her rights under Article 31, UCMJ, before being asked any questions concerning the suspected offense... No adverse inference will be drawn against witnesses or respondents who invoke their rights.

AR 15-6 ¶3-13d(7), pp.12-13

neither bound nor limited by the findings or recommendations of an IO or board... may consider any relevant information... even information that the IO or board did not consider

AR 15-6 ¶2-2b

// 02What this means in practice

Here is the mistake that trips up almost every new commander or 1SG the first time something goes wrong in the formation: they hear "we need to investigate this" and reach for whatever template landed in their inbox last time, without asking which of the three AR 15-6 procedures the situation actually calls for. AR 15-6 doesn't give you one investigation. It gives you three, and they are not interchangeable.

The Preliminary Inquiry (Chapter 4) is the fast, informal look — you're figuring out whether there's even something here worth a formal process. It carries no procedural requirements. No respondent, no rights warnings baked into the structure, no hearing. Think of it as triage: does this need to go further, or does it die here.

The Administrative Investigation (Chapter 5) is what most people picture when they say "15-6." One IO, or sometimes multiple, gathering facts and making findings and recommendations. But notice what it does NOT have: no respondent designation, no hearing. The Soldier being looked at doesn't get to cross-examine anyone or call witnesses in this track.

The Board of Officers (Chapter 6) is the heavyweight version — a formal hearing, and the only one of the three where you, as the appointing authority, can designate someone a "respondent." That designation is discretionary — it doesn't happen automatically just because adverse findings might come out of it. You decide. And that decision matters enormously, because respondent status comes with real due-process weight: entitlement to counsel, including civilian counsel at no Government expense, at least 10 business days' notice before the first session along with the case-file documents, the right to examine and object to evidence, cross-examine witnesses, call witnesses, and testify or decline to testify without an adverse inference being drawn from that silence.

So the first decision you make as the appointing authority isn't "who investigates" — it's "which of these three am I authorizing," because that choice determines what rights attach before you've written a single word of an appointment memo.

Now, roles. AR 15-6 recognizes three: subject, respondent, witness — and they are not the same tier of rights wearing different labels.

A subject is someone credible evidence points to as possibly involved, such that disciplinary or administrative action may follow. A subject does not automatically get a right to counsel — that only arises if they're suspected of committing an offense — and does not automatically get a hearing. There's a narrower right to respond to adverse findings that exists in the regulation, but read the fine print: it applies specifically to regular commissioned officers. Not warrant officers. Not enlisted. That's not an oversight in this summary — it's what the regulation actually says, and it's exactly the kind of distinction that gets mishandled when someone assumes "subject" means the same protections across the board regardless of rank or component.

A respondent, as covered above, only exists in the Board of Officers track, and gets the richer rights package.

A witness gets none of that representational scaffolding. No notice requirement, no access to evidence, no cross-examination right. The only protection a witness carries is the same one a respondent carries — the Article 31/Fifth Amendment shield against self-incrimination — and it only activates when the witness is actually asked a potentially incriminating question, triggering the Article 31 rights warning before that specific line of questioning continues.

Here's the rights tier that actually matters most for your day-to-day decisions, and it's the one that's easiest to miss because it doesn't live inside any of the three role definitions above. ¶3-4d creates a broadly-applicable safeguard: whenever you're contemplating adverse administrative action against ANY Soldier — subject, respondent, or otherwise — based on an AR 15-6 investigation, before you take final action you must notify that Soldier in writing, provide them a redacted copy of the relevant investigation materials, and give them no less than 10 business days (20 for ARNG/USAR) to reply in writing and submit rebuttal matters, which you then have to actually review and evaluate. This is not conditioned on the Soldier being designated a respondent. It is not conditioned on officer status. It applies regardless. If you take adverse action off the back of a 15-6 investigation without having run this notice-and-reply sequence, you've built your action on a procedural gap that will get found, whether by your legal advisor now or by an appellate reviewer later.

One more trigger you need wired into your thinking from day one: if you are contemplating a relief for cause based on an AR 15-6 investigation, ¶3-4e is explicit that the AR 15-6 referral procedures — meaning that same notice-and-reply sequence — must be followed before you initiate or direct the relief. AR 623-3 cross-references this requirement directly. Relief-for-cause is not a separate track that happens to sometimes involve a 15-6 investigation in the background; if the investigation is the basis, the process is mandatory, not optional, before you act.

Worth knowing so you don't chase a phantom: AR 15-6 never mentions "GOMOR" or memorandum of reprimand by name. It governs the investigation. AR 600-37 governs the reprimand itself. Keep those two regulations in their separate lanes in your own head, because your legal advisor will.

Last piece, and it's freeing rather than restrictive: as the approval authority, you are neither bound nor limited by the findings or recommendations of the IO or board. You can consider relevant information the IO or board never saw. That authority is real — but it doesn't erase the notice-and-reply obligation above it. You can disagree with your investigating officer. You cannot skip telling the Soldier what you're about to do to them and giving them a chance to respond first.

// 03What most get wrong

Two errors show up constantly. First, commanders and 1SGs conflate the three procedure types — treating a Preliminary Inquiry, an Administrative Investigation, and a Board of Officers as three names for the same thing, when they carry completely different rights structures. Only the Board of Officers track lets you designate a respondent with the full due-process package (counsel, notice, cross-examination). If you needed that level of process but ran an Administrative Investigation instead, you don't get to retrofit those rights after the fact.

Second, and more consequential day-to-day: people assume the notice-and-reply right under ¶3-4d only kicks in for officers, or only for someone formally tagged a "respondent." It doesn't. It applies to any Soldier facing adverse administrative action grounded in a 15-6 investigation — written notice, a redacted copy of the materials, at least 10 business days to respond, and your actual review of what they submit. Skip this step because the Soldier was "just a subject" or enlisted rather than a commissioned officer, and you've handed the Soldier's counsel or the appellate authority an easy procedural defect to hang the whole action on — regardless of how solid your findings were.

// 04Regulations cited in this lesson

• AR 15-6 Glossary, p.61
• AR 15-6 ¶3-4d, p.7
• AR 15-6 ¶3-4e, p.7
• AR 15-6 ¶3-13d(7), pp.12-13
• AR 15-6 ¶2-2b

// 05More in Adverse Actions for New Commanders & 1SGs

• Initiating a Flag Correctly
• Issuing a GOMOR — Filing Determination, Due Process
• Article 15 from the Commander's Chair
• Relief for Cause — the AR 15-6 Prerequisite
• Writing Memos That Hold Up
• QMP/QSP Awareness

← All Academy lessons