The soldier who is the subject of an AR 15-6 investigation has specific rights under the applicable regulations, including the right to be informed of adverse findings and to submit a rebuttal. The timing and process for accessing the investigation report are governed by regulation, and understanding those rules is essential for any service member who intends to challenge the findings or to use the report’s content in a subsequent proceeding.
The opportunity to submit a rebuttal is not a formality. A well-constructed rebuttal that directly addresses the investigating officer’s findings, identifies factual errors, and presents evidence that the investigation failed to consider can influence how the report is acted upon. Commands are required to consider a rebuttal before taking action on the findings, and a thorough rebuttal that changes the evidentiary picture can result in modification of the findings or a more favorable command response.
The Rights of the Subject During an AR 15-6 Investigation
A service member who is identified as a subject of an AR 15-6 investigation, meaning someone whose conduct is specifically under inquiry rather than a witness to the events at issue, has rights that attach at specific points in the process. Before being interviewed, a subject who may have committed a UCMJ offense must be advised of their Article 31 rights. A subject who is a suspect in a criminal matter is not required to speak to the investigating officer and retains the full protection of the right against self-incrimination throughout the proceeding.
After the investigation concludes and the report is completed, the subject has the right to review those portions of the report that contain adverse findings and to submit a rebuttal for the appointing authority’s consideration. This access is not immediate and is governed by a process that requires the chain of command to notify the subject and provide an opportunity to respond before taking adverse action based on the findings. The right to submit a rebuttal is not a formality, and a rebuttal that is thoughtfully constructed and supported by evidence can influence how the findings are acted upon.
When and How the Report Becomes Available to the Subject
The AR 15-6 report becomes available to the subject through the regulated notification process that must occur before any adverse action is taken based on the findings. The command must notify the subject that adverse findings have been made, provide the subject access to those portions of the report relevant to the adverse findings, and give the subject time to prepare and submit a rebuttal. The specific notice and access requirements are governed by the AR 15-6 regulation and by the Due Process protections applicable to administrative actions.
A soldier who is not given access to the report before adverse action is taken, or who is given inadequate time to prepare a rebuttal, has grounds to challenge the action that follows. The procedural protections at this stage are not aspirational. They are legal requirements that must be followed, and a command that bypasses them has created a challengeable defect in the adverse action process.
What Can Be Done With the Report Once It Is Received
Once the soldier has access to the relevant portions of the AR 15-6 report, the first priority is a thorough review of the findings and the evidence on which they are based. The report should be examined for factual errors, for evidence that was not considered or was mischaracterized, for witness statements that are inconsistent with the known facts, and for conclusions that are not supported by the evidence the report itself presents. Each finding that is going to be challenged must be identified specifically so that the rebuttal can address it directly.
The review also creates a discovery map for any subsequent proceedings. Witness statements in the AR 15-6 report can be compared with what those witnesses say in later proceedings. Evidence the investigating officer reviewed that was not preserved or produced can be identified and requested. The overall quality of the investigation and the investigating officer’s process can be assessed for any procedural defects that are worth raising.
Submitting a Rebuttal to the AR 15-6 Findings
An effective rebuttal directly addresses each adverse finding and provides evidence or argument that supports a different conclusion. A rebuttal that makes general complaints about the fairness of the investigation without addressing specific findings is less persuasive than one that methodically works through each adverse finding, identifies the specific factual or analytical error, and presents specific evidence that contradicts or contextualizes the finding.
The rebuttal should be written with the appointing authority as the primary audience. That authority will review both the report and the rebuttal before deciding what action to take, and they should come away from the rebuttal with specific reasons to doubt or discount the adverse findings. A rebuttal that presents new evidence the investigating officer did not have, corrects factual errors that are verifiable through records, and articulates a coherent alternative interpretation of the evidence gives the appointing authority a substantive basis for taking less severe action than the findings would otherwise support.
How the Report Flows Through the Chain of Command
After the appointing authority reviews the report and any rebuttal, they take action and send the report up through the chain of command with their endorsement. Higher commanders review the report and the endorsements and may add their own comments or take their own action. The final disposition of the report, including any actions taken based on it, becomes part of the record that may follow the soldier through subsequent assignments and evaluations.
A soldier who understands how the report flows through the chain of command can monitor the process and can, through counsel, make submissions to reviewing authorities at each level if there are specific concerns about how the findings are being used. The higher up the chain the report goes, the more senior the audience, and the more consequential the action that reviewing authority can take. Ensuring that the most compelling defense information reaches each reviewing authority at the appropriate time is an ongoing management task that does not end with the initial rebuttal.
This content is provided for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Military law is complex and fact-specific. If you are facing a UCMJ investigation, court-martial, administrative separation, or any other military legal matter, consult a qualified military defense attorney before taking any action.