What happens if the subject of a 15-6 has his investigation compromised prior to his or her own notification of the 15-6?

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 May 2022 08:17:41 -0400

During a 15-6 commanders inquiry / investigation. What are the next steps or procedures to take if the investigation is compromised prior to notification of the subject? Example being the commander / investigating officer discussing events in a public setting for all ears to hear. Then others nearby notify the subject of the discussion?

Response by SFC Ralph E Kelley made May 6 at 2022 8:28 AM

SFC Ralph E Kelley — Fri, 06 May 2022 08:28:42 -0400

Army Regulation 15–6, Appendix C: Investigating Officer’s Guide discusses concurrent investigations and what data may be shared between investigators - On approval of the Senior JAG Officer supervising both investigation. The SJAG may also decide to pursue only one case or combine concurrent investigations,.

Response by CSM William Everroad made May 6 at 2022 9:06 AM

CSM William Everroad — Fri, 06 May 2022 09:06:16 -0400

Where they talking about the event under investigation or the findings or investigation procedures? In any case, my feeling is that it would be unprofessional, but short of compromising. My guess is that the legal advisor would instruct the IO to not discuss the investigation with outside parties.

The Investigating Officer's Guide only indicates, when considering discussing the investigation:
"In appropriate cases, an investigating officer may direct witnesses not to discuss their statement or testimony with other witnesses or with persons who have no official interest in the proceedings until the investigation is complete. This precaution is recommended to eliminate possible influence on testimony of witnesses still to be heard. Witnesses, however, are not precluded from discussing matters with counsel."

However, it and AR 15-6 are silent on whether the IO should/should not discuss the investigation in an open setting. AR 15-6 does indicate that in the event of "procedural errors or irregularities in an investigation [that] have a material adverse effect on an individual’s substantial rights" should be brought to the appointing officer. In which case, they could direct the IO to correct the issue or appoint a new IO.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made May 6 at 2022 9:18 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Fri, 06 May 2022 09:18:16 -0400

I think you're confusing a 15-6 investigation for a classified data spill.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 6 at 2022 10:40 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 May 2022 10:40:47 -0400

One would have to ask if the IO and Commander were discussing how to proceed with a path for the investigation or were they discussing what is being investigated. If they were discussing either in a public setting, I would see that as unprofessional. That being said...if they were ONLY discussing how they will proceed with the investigation but NOT discussing details of the investigation then nothing was compromised. At least, IMHO. If they were discussing specific details as to why the investigation is happening...then yea I could possibly see that as a compromise. If you want a full legal answer, go see JAG.