An AR 15-6 investigation is a fact-finding tool, not a sentencing mechanism. The investigating officer who conducts the inquiry produces findings and may make recommendations, but the action taken on those findings is entirely within the discretion of the commander who receives the report. Some AR 15-6 investigations result in no further action at all. Others result in counseling, administrative action, or referral to a UCMJ proceeding. The outcome depends on what the investigation found and on the command’s assessment of how to respond.
Service members who are the subject of an AR 15-6 investigation sometimes assume that completing the investigation without criminal referral means the matter is closed. In practice, the report and its findings remain in the command’s possession and can be used in subsequent administrative proceedings. Understanding what the investigation actually found, preserving the right to respond to adverse findings, and monitoring how the report is being used are all part of protecting the service member’s interests after the investigation concludes.
The Purpose and Scope of an AR 15-6 Investigation
An AR 15-6 investigation is an administrative fact-finding tool used by Army commanders to inquire into matters affecting the command. Unlike a criminal investigation conducted by CID or other law enforcement, an AR 15-6 investigation is a command-directed inquiry led by an investigating officer, who is appointed by the convening authority and directed to gather facts, make findings, and provide recommendations on specified issues. The investigating officer is not a law enforcement agent and does not have arrest authority, but they do have the authority to obtain statements, review records, and examine evidence relevant to the inquiry.
The scope of an AR 15-6 investigation is defined by the appointing order, which specifies the issues the investigating officer is directed to examine. This scope can be narrow, limited to a specific incident, or broad, encompassing systemic issues within a unit or program. The investigating officer must stay within the defined scope unless the appointing authority expands it, and both the convening authority and the subject of the investigation have an interest in ensuring that the inquiry stays within proper boundaries.
The Range of Actions Available After the Investigation Concludes
When an AR 15-6 investigation is complete, the investigating officer submits a report to the appointing authority with findings and recommendations. The appointing authority then decides what action, if any, to take based on the findings. The range of available actions spans from no action, to a letter of concern, a letter of reprimand, a referral to higher command, or a referral to law enforcement for further criminal investigation. The appointing authority is not bound by the investigating officer’s recommendations and may take different action than what was recommended.
For the soldier who was the subject of the investigation, the action the command takes on the findings is the practical outcome that matters most. An investigating officer who recommends administrative counseling and a commander who disagrees and refers the matter to CID produce very different downstream consequences. Understanding the range of actions available and what each means for the soldier’s career and legal exposure is essential for anyone navigating the aftermath of an AR 15-6.
How Often AR 15-6 Investigations Result in UCMJ Charges
The frequency with which AR 15-6 investigations result in UCMJ charges depends on the subject matter of the investigation and the facts that emerge. Investigations into incidents that are primarily operational in character, such as training accidents, equipment failures, or administrative errors, less frequently result in criminal charges than investigations into personal misconduct, financial irregularities, or allegations of physical abuse or assault. When the investigation uncovers evidence of conduct that meets the threshold for a UCMJ offense, referral to CID or formal charges may follow.
An AR 15-6 investigation that begins as an administrative fact-finding exercise can transition into a criminal matter as the investigating officer follows the evidence. A soldier who participates in an AR 15-6 investigation without understanding that the proceeding can produce evidence used in a criminal case may unwittingly provide statements or admissions that become part of a later prosecution. The investigation’s administrative character does not protect the soldier from the criminal consequences of information the investigation generates.
What the Investigating Officer Recommends vs. What Command Decides
The investigating officer’s recommendations are advisory, not binding. The appointing authority retains full discretion to accept, reject, or modify the recommendations, to take different action than what was recommended, or to refer the matter to a higher command for a decision. A favorable recommendation from the investigating officer is therefore not a guarantee of a favorable outcome. A recommendation for no adverse action can still be overridden by a commander who sees the facts differently or who has command policy considerations that were not fully available to the investigating officer.
Understanding this dynamic is important for soldiers who are tempted to relax after receiving word that the investigating officer’s recommendations were favorable. The command’s decision has not been made until the appointing authority has acted, and that decision may differ from the recommendation. Counsel who monitor the post-investigation process and who maintain communication with the command’s legal office can provide earlier warning of an adverse outcome and more time to respond effectively.
Using the AR 15-6 Findings in a Later Defense
The AR 15-6 report and findings can be used by the defense in subsequent administrative or legal proceedings in several ways. When the investigation found that no misconduct occurred, that finding is evidence that supports the defense position in any subsequent action on the same underlying facts. When the investigation found misconduct but the findings contain factual errors or contradictions, those errors can be used to challenge the reliability of the overall investigation.
The report is also subject to discovery in a court-martial proceeding if it is relevant to the charged offenses. Defense counsel who obtain the full AR 15-6 report, including all witness statements and exhibits, can use it to identify inconsistencies between what witnesses said to the investigating officer and what they say at trial, to impeach witnesses whose accounts have changed, and to identify investigative leads that the government may have failed to pursue. A thorough review of the AR 15-6 file is often one of the most productive early investments in a defense.
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.