Military Administrative Defense • Gonzalez & Waddington

AR 15-6 Investigating Officer Wants to Interview Me — Should I Talk?

By Michael Waddington, former Army JAG and civilian military defense lawyer • Reviewed for publication by Alexandra Gonzalez-Waddington • Updated September 2, 2026

What should I do when the investigating officer contacts me?

Start by gathering information without discussing the facts. Ask for the investigating officer’s name, contact information, appointing command, proposed date and location, and whether you are being contacted as a witness, subject, or suspect. Ask whether there is an appointment memorandum or written list of allegations that can be provided. Do not argue about the case during this logistical exchange.

Then preserve evidence. Save complete communications, calendars, duty records, orders, travel data, photographs, video, receipts, and names of witnesses with direct knowledge. Do not delete or “clean up” material. Do not call the complainant or other witnesses to compare accounts. Do not circulate the investigation through group chats or social media.

Contact counsel before the interview. A lawyer needs enough time to identify the possible offenses, assess the administrative and criminal risks, and decide whether an oral interview, written statement, limited response, or invocation of rights is appropriate.

Why does my status matter?

AR 15-6 uses different terms for different roles. A witness provides information. A subject is someone whose conduct or responsibility is within the scope and whose rights or reputation may be affected. A suspect is someone reasonably believed to have committed a criminal offense. A respondent is a formal party in a board of officers.

A label is not conclusive. The questions themselves can reveal that your status has changed. An IO may begin by asking about unit practices and then move into whether you disobeyed an order, made a false statement, misused funds, harassed a subordinate, assaulted someone, or committed another UCMJ offense. Once criminal suspicion exists, Article 31(b) may apply even if the appointment memorandum calls the process administrative.^[2]

Ask counsel to evaluate both the formal designation and the functional reality. A person can face serious administrative exposure without being a criminal suspect, and a nominal witness can become a suspect in the middle of the interview.

What does Article 31(b) require?

Article 31(b), UCMJ, applies when a person subject to the UCMJ interrogates or requests a statement from an accused or a person suspected of an offense. The person must be informed of the nature of the accusation, advised of the right not to make a statement about the offense, and warned that a statement may be used as evidence in a court-martial.^[2]

The trigger is not simply whether the IO used the word “suspect.” The issue is whether the questioner believes or reasonably should believe the person committed an offense and is seeking an incriminating statement. Counsel should review the circumstances, the questions, the appointment order, and any warnings given.

Article 31 is not a license to lie. If you choose not to answer, invoke clearly. If you answer, tell the truth and distinguish what you remember from what you assume. A knowingly false official statement can create independent exposure.

Can I be ordered to appear even if I do not want to answer?

Yes. A commander may issue lawful orders concerning attendance and administrative cooperation. A Soldier should not disobey or ignore an order based on a general internet article. But an order to appear does not automatically extinguish the privilege against self-incrimination.

The proper response is disciplined: appear as required, have counsel communicate when possible, and invoke applicable rights in a clear and professional way. Do not turn the encounter into a confrontation about command authority. Do not leave without permission if ordered to remain. Obtain case-specific advice about any order directing answers, production of records, or access to government property.

Special rules may apply when a command seeks compelled information under a grant of immunity or other protection. Those situations are legally sensitive. Do not assume a statement is immunized merely because someone says it is “administrative” or “cannot be used criminally.” Ask for the authority and terms in writing and have counsel evaluate them before speaking.

Can my lawyer attend the interview?

AR 15-6 states that a subject of an administrative investigation is not automatically entitled to representation during the process, although counsel rights may arise when the person is suspected of an offense. A respondent in a board has more formal rights.^[1] Local practice and the interviewee’s status can affect whether counsel is physically present.

Even when the IO will not permit counsel to sit in the room, counsel can still provide meaningful help by:

• reviewing the scope and potential allegations;
• identifying Article 31 issues;
• preparing the client to recognize ambiguous or compound questions;
• deciding whether to invoke or provide a limited statement;
• requesting clarification or rescheduling when justified;
• preserving a record of warnings and restrictions;
• helping prepare a written response instead of an oral interview; and
• following up with documents or corrections when strategically appropriate.

Should I give an oral interview or a written statement?

Each format has advantages and risks. An oral interview lets the IO ask follow-up questions and assess demeanor. It can correct misconceptions quickly, but it also creates room for imprecision, fatigue, speculation, and unexpected subjects. A written statement gives the defense more control over wording and supporting exhibits, but it can look incomplete if it avoids obvious issues and it becomes a permanent record.

The decision should be based on the expected benefit. Counsel should ask:

• What material fact can the statement establish?
• Is that fact supported by objective evidence?
• What admissions are unavoidable?
• What criminal or administrative standards may apply?
• What evidence has the defense not yet seen?
• Could the statement conflict with another report, email, or prior interview?
• Will the IO accept a written submission or targeted documents?
• Could silence have an administrative consequence even if it cannot lawfully be treated as criminal proof?
• Does the client have a memory, medical, language, or stress issue affecting accuracy?

A useful statement is not necessarily long. It identifies the allegation, answers only what should be answered, distinguishes fact from inference, cites corroborating documents, and avoids gratuitous accusations. A useful invocation is also not long. It clearly states the decision to remain silent and request counsel.

What questions should make me pause?

Any question can matter, but certain categories often create hidden exposure:

• “Why do you think the complainant said this?” invites speculation about motive.
• “Did you ever…” may expand beyond the incident named in the appointment memorandum.
• “Is there any reason a witness would remember it differently?” can prompt unsupported concessions.
• “Who else knew?” may implicate reporting duties, conspiracy, or concealment.
• “Did you tell anyone to delete or change anything?” raises obstruction concerns.
• “Were you aware of the policy?” may establish knowledge for an orders violation.
• “Is this your signature/account/device?” may authenticate evidence.
• “Is there anything else you have not told us?” encourages broad, unstructured disclosure.

The solution is not to outsmart the IO with evasive wordplay. It is to understand the allegation and choose deliberately whether to answer. If answering, listen carefully, request clarification when needed, and do not guess.

Should I record the interview?

Do not secretly record a military interview without obtaining advice about federal, state, host-nation, installation, and command rules. Ask whether the IO will record or transcribe the interview and whether you may receive a copy. Afterward, create a confidential memorandum for counsel documenting the date, participants, warnings, duration, subjects discussed, documents shown, breaks, and any request to stop or consult counsel.

If you sign a statement, read every line. Correct inaccuracies. Do not sign merely because the IO says the wording is “close enough.” Ask for a copy. Note whether the statement is sworn, whether attachments are incorporated, and whether changes are initialed.

What if the interview concerns command climate or leadership style rather than a crime?

Administrative leadership investigations can still be consequential. Questions about toxic leadership, reprisal, favoritism, equal opportunity, harassment, travel, leave, discipline, or treatment of subordinates may lead to relief, adverse evaluations, reprimands, or elimination even without criminal charges.

In those cases, Article 31 may not apply to every question, but preparation still matters. Leadership cases often turn on patterns, anonymous or secondhand accounts, omitted operational context, and broad standards. The defense should identify specific events, contemporaneous records, mission requirements, prior guidance, and witnesses who can distinguish firm leadership from prohibited conduct.

Do not answer a generalized allegation with a generalized defense. “I am a good leader” does not rebut a specific finding. A better record explains what happened, why, under what authority, who observed it, and what documentation supports the decision.

Can the IO use my interview in later action?

Yes, subject to governing rights and evidentiary rules. The statement may be attached to the investigation, summarized in the report, considered by the approval authority, incorporated into a GOMOR or evaluation, or provided to law enforcement. A response to later adverse findings can also become part of the record.

That is why counsel should write and speak for multiple audiences. A sentence intended to sound cooperative today may be quoted by a filing authority, separation board, promotion board, clearance adjudicator, or prosecutor later. The goal is not to sound defensive or aggressive; it is to be accurate, legally informed, and consistent.

What evidence should I prepare before deciding whether to talk?

Build a privileged evidence map, not a pile of screenshots. For each allegation, identify:

1. the exact act, date, person, policy, or duty at issue;
2. what the government would need to show;
3. what you know from personal observation;
4. what records corroborate or contradict the allegation;
5. which witnesses have direct knowledge;
6. what evidence may disappear soon;
7. what unfavorable facts must be addressed honestly;
8. what questions remain unanswered; and
9. what disclosure would reveal unnecessary defense strategy.

This map helps counsel decide whether the interview can materially improve the record. It also prepares the case if the IO proceeds without your statement.

I already talked to the IO. What should I do now?

Do not panic and do not call back to “fix” the interview on your own. Write a confidential account for counsel while your memory is fresh. Include the warnings, questions, answers, documents, participants, tone, breaks, and any statement you signed. Preserve emails or texts scheduling the interview.

Counsel can then determine whether a correction, supplemental submission, legal objection, preservation request, or no action is best. A prompt written correction may help when the error is objective and material. It may hurt when it opens new subjects or highlights a discrepancy that was not significant. Strategy depends on the exact record.

If you invoked rights but questioning continued, or if your status shifted without a warning, tell counsel precisely what happened. Potential Article 31 and voluntariness issues should be documented early.

What happens if I decline to answer?

The consequences depend on status, the nature of the question, whether a lawful order exists, and whether criminal exposure is present. Silence may leave the IO with an incomplete record. In a purely administrative matter, a command may consider available evidence and proceed without your account. But the fear of an adverse inference does not automatically justify waiving a self-incrimination right.

Counsel may be able to present objective documents or a limited position without an open-ended interview. In some cases the best strategy is to preserve the right to contest the report during referral or rebuttal. In others, failing to provide a readily verifiable fact creates unnecessary risk. This is why blanket internet advice—always talk or never talk—is inadequate.

How does the interview connect to adverse findings?

The IO uses interviews and exhibits to draft findings under the preponderance standard. The approval authority can accept, reject, modify, or return the report. For certain adverse information involving commissioned officers, current AR 15-6 requires referral and an opportunity to respond before final action.^[1]

If findings are referred, review the firm’s AR 15-6 Rebuttal Lawyer guide. If no findings have been issued, start with the AR 15-6 Investigation Lawyer pillar and the decision guide on whether to hire counsel during the investigation.

How Gonzalez & Waddington approaches AR 15-6 interview decisions

The firm does not use a mechanical “never speak” rule. The lawyers assess the allegation, the client’s status, the known evidence, the likely audience, and the expected benefit of a statement. The objective is to avoid creating harmful evidence while preserving opportunities to correct demonstrably false premises.

Gonzalez & Waddington represents service members worldwide in command investigations, law-enforcement investigations, reprimands, administrative boards, and courts-martial. Learn more about the firm’s command-directed investigation practice and military investigation rights.

Legal information notice: This page provides general educational information and is not legal advice for any particular person or case. Regulations, policies, deadlines, service practices, and available remedies can change. Reading this page or contacting the firm does not create an attorney-client relationship. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.