Military Administrative Defense • Gonzalez & Waddington

AR 15-6 Investigation Lawyer — Civilian Army Investigation Defense

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

What is an AR 15-6 investigation?

Army Regulation 15-6 supplies a general procedural framework for Army fact-finding. The current regulation identifies three principal mechanisms: preliminary inquiries, administrative investigations, and boards of officers. Commanders use them to examine allegations or organizational problems, gather facts, make findings, and support later command decisions. AR 15-6 does not replace the separate rules governing felony criminal investigations by Army CID, military-police investigations, or inspector-general investigations.^[1]

The label “administrative” can be misleading. An AR 15-6 inquiry may begin as command fact-finding, but the report can influence a reprimand, GOMOR filing decision, referred OER or adverse NCOER, relief for cause, security-clearance reporting, suspension of favorable personnel actions, QMP consideration, administrative separation, officer elimination, or a criminal referral. A finding can matter even when no Article 15 or court-martial charge is ever filed.

The investigating officer is not a judge and the investigation is not a trial. Traditional rules of evidence do not operate in the same way they do in court. The IO ordinarily works from an appointment memorandum defining the issues, interviews witnesses, collects records, evaluates credibility, and drafts findings and recommendations. The appointing or approval authority—not the IO alone—ultimately decides what action to take and may approve, disapprove, modify, or return findings for further investigation.^[1]

Why the 2025 revision matters

The June 22, 2025 version superseded the 2016 regulation. It clarifies credibility screening before an investigation begins, updates the definitions of adverse information and subjects, incorporates Army adverse-information policy, changes investigative checklists and sample memoranda, and provides more explicit procedures for referring certain adverse findings to commissioned officers. Anyone relying on an old checklist, old template, or older online article should compare it against the current text.^[1]

The regulation also gives investigation timing more structure. Unless another rule supplies a different deadline, “timely” generally means no more than 30 business days, although complexity and other circumstances can justify variation or extension. That is not a promise that the Soldier’s matter will be finished in exactly 30 business days. It is a management standard, and many investigations take longer because of witness availability, legal review, additional tasking, or returned findings.

Once a preliminary inquiry, administrative investigation, or board is initiated, the current regulation directs flagging of subjects and respondents under AR 600-8-2 when applicable. The practical result can be immediate career friction—delayed awards, schooling, reassignment, promotion, or other favorable actions—before any final finding has been approved.

Am I a witness, subject, suspect, or respondent?

Status drives strategy. A witness is generally someone believed to have information. A subject is a person whose conduct or responsibility is within the investigation and whose rights, reputation, or career may be affected. A suspect is a person reasonably believed to have committed a criminal offense. A respondent is a formal designation used in a board of officers, where more trial-like procedural rights may apply.

Do not assume the investigating officer’s first label will remain fixed. A witness can become a subject or suspect as evidence develops. A subject can face criminal exposure even when the appointment memorandum was written in administrative language. Conversely, a Soldier can be designated a subject even when the alleged conduct is noncriminal. The right question is not only, “What did they call me?” It is, “What are they investigating, what evidence do they appear to have, and could my answers expose me to UCMJ action?”

AR 15-6 explains that an investigation subject is not automatically entitled to have counsel participate in the investigation merely because of that designation. The right to counsel may arise if the subject is suspected of an offense. A respondent in a board has more formal representation rights.^[1] Even when counsel cannot sit beside a witness or subject during every administrative interview, a civilian lawyer can still advise before the interview, communicate with the legal office, preserve evidence, and prepare the client for the consequences of each choice.

How does the preponderance standard change the defense?

Preponderance is often described as “more likely than not.” That is a lower burden than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But lower does not mean nonexistent. The current regulation directs the factfinder to weigh credibility, opportunity for knowledge, bias, motive, intent, memory, corroboration, contradictions, direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, and reasonable inferences.^[1]

A useful defense therefore does more than say, “I disagree.” It maps every allegation to the evidence needed to support it, then tests whether the report actually supplies that evidence. Common deficiencies include:

• the IO accepted a conclusion without identifying the underlying facts;
• the investigation interviewed only witnesses supporting the complaint;
• the report summarized testimony inaccurately or incompletely;
• the IO failed to reconcile timestamps, duty records, travel data, or message threads;
• hearsay or rumor was treated as personal knowledge;
• credibility was decided by rank, confidence, or demeanor without addressing bias and corroboration;
• the wrong policy version or legal standard was applied;
• mitigating or extenuating circumstances were ignored; or
• the finding merely repeated the allegation with the word “substantiated.”

The most persuasive response converts those criticisms into a source-based record. It cites the appointment memorandum, witness statements, exhibits, policy provisions, objective records, and missing investigative steps. It gives the approval authority a lawful and administratively usable reason to reject, narrow, or return a finding.

What can an AR 15-6 investigation lawyer do before findings are issued?

Early representation is not limited to telling a client to remain silent. Depending on the facts and the command posture, counsel may:

1. Identify the scope. Obtain or request the appointment memorandum, allegations, interview notice, orders, and known deadlines.
2. Assess exposure. Separate performance or leadership issues from allegations that could support Article 92, Article 107, Article 120, Article 128, Article 132, Article 133, Article 134, or other punitive action.
3. Advise on statements. Determine whether to invoke rights, answer limited questions, provide a written statement, request clarification, or make no substantive statement.
4. Preserve evidence. Secure messages, emails, calendars, orders, counseling records, duty logs, travel data, medical records, training materials, photographs, video, and other records before they disappear.
5. Develop witnesses. Identify people with direct knowledge whom the IO may not know about and determine whether declarations or interviews are appropriate.
6. Correct the frame. Point out omitted issues, mistaken policies, incomplete timelines, or demonstrably false assumptions without disclosing unnecessary defense strategy.
7. Prepare for referral. Build an organized file so counsel can respond quickly if adverse findings are referred.
8. Coordinate parallel risks. Make sure the investigation strategy does not create avoidable admissions for a GOMOR, Article 15, separation, clearance action, or court-martial.

Counsel cannot guarantee that a commander will stop an investigation, dictate who the IO interviews, obstruct evidence collection, or force a particular outcome. The realistic value is strategic control: fewer accidental admissions, better preservation, a more complete record, and a defense theory designed for every forum that may follow.

The investigating officer wants to interview me. Should I talk?

There is no responsible universal answer. A person ordered to report should ordinarily comply with the lawful order to appear, but appearance and waiver of self-incrimination rights are separate questions. If the IO reasonably suspects a UCMJ offense, Article 31(b) requires a warning about the nature of the accusation, the right not to make a statement, and the potential use of the statement.^[2]

An interview may help when objective facts can quickly correct a mistaken premise and the criminal risk is low. It may harm when the allegations are vague, the IO is testing inconsistent accounts, digital evidence is unknown, or the answer can become an admission in another proceeding. A written submission can sometimes provide more accuracy and control than an open-ended oral interview. In other cases, declining to provide a statement is the sound choice.

Before the interview, a lawyer should help answer four questions: What exactly is alleged? What is the client’s current status? What evidence is already known or preserved? What strategic benefit is expected from speaking now? If the answer to the fourth question is only “I do not want them to think I am guilty,” that is not enough analysis.

Read the dedicated guide: AR 15-6 Investigating Officer Wants to Interview Me—Should I Talk?

What should I preserve immediately?

Preservation should be broad enough to protect context but disciplined enough to maintain authenticity. Save complete message threads rather than isolated screenshots. Keep native files and metadata when possible. Record names, dates, locations, and how documents were obtained. Do not edit files or ask witnesses to conform their recollections.

Potentially useful material includes:

• the appointment memorandum and written allegations;
• emails, Teams messages, texts, Signal or WhatsApp exchanges, and social-media communications;
• calendars, leave records, duty rosters, flight manifests, gate logs, access records, and travel receipts;
• policies, SOPs, training slides, command guidance, and prior legal advice;
• counseling records, evaluations, awards, and documented performance;
• photographs, video, audio, phone logs, and location history;
• medical or behavioral-health records when genuinely relevant and lawfully obtainable;
• names of witnesses with direct personal knowledge; and
• a private chronology prepared for counsel, marked and maintained as privileged communication.

Do not delete embarrassing material merely because it looks bad. Deletion can destroy exculpatory context and create a separate allegation of obstruction, false statement, or lack of candor.

What happens when the investigation is complete?

The IO prepares findings and recommendations. A legal advisor reviews the file, and the approval authority may approve, reject, modify, or direct more investigation. An approved report can close with no adverse action, but it can also support counseling, a reprimand, a GOMOR, an adverse evaluation, relief, nonjudicial punishment, separation, a Board of Inquiry, a security action, or referral to law enforcement.

For commissioned officers, the 2025 regulation contains a specific referral process when the investigation includes adverse information. The officer must receive meaningful notice and an opportunity to respond before final action, and the current rule provides at least 10 business days in that procedure. The response and supporting material become part of the investigative record, and the IO may update findings or explain why the response did not change them.^[1]

That is the point at which your existing AR 15-6 rebuttal lawyer page becomes the next resource. The investigation-stage page and rebuttal-stage page should not compete; they address different moments and different client decisions.

Can AR 15-6 findings be reconsidered?

The current regulation permits a subject, suspect, or respondent to request reconsideration on grounds such as newly discovered evidence, mistake of law, mistake of fact, or administrative error. Ordinarily, the request must be directed through the appropriate legal channel and submitted within one year of approval, with possible good-cause consideration outside that period. Reconsideration is not generally available when the investigation already resulted in an action that has its own separate due-process system.^[1]

That makes timing important. It is usually easier to influence an open record than to undo an approved finding after the command has taken action. A reconsideration request should not merely reargue the same narrative. It should identify the qualifying basis, show how the new information or error affects a specific finding, and explain the precise correction requested.

How AR 15-6 connects to a GOMOR, BOI, and retirement risk

Administrative cases rarely remain in a single box. A substantiated finding can become the factual premise for a GOMOR. A permanently filed reprimand can lead to officer elimination or enlisted separation. An adverse evaluation can influence promotion and continuation. A clearance incident can affect duty status. For senior personnel, one report may be read by multiple decision-makers over several years.

The defense should therefore use consistent facts and a consistent theory. A casual interview answer should not undermine a later rebuttal. A mitigation-focused reprimand response should not accidentally concede a disputed investigation. A request for local filing should not create unnecessary admissions for a Board of Inquiry. Continuity of counsel helps keep those positions aligned.

If the investigation has already produced a reprimand, use our immediate-action Letter of Reprimand guide. If an Army GOMOR is already permanently filed, see the GOMOR removal and DASEB appeal guide.

How to choose a civilian lawyer for an AR 15-6 investigation

Why Gonzalez & Waddington handles AR 15-6 cases as record-building cases

Gonzalez & Waddington, LLC represents Soldiers and other service members in investigations, reprimands, administrative boards, and courts-martial worldwide. The firm’s approach to an AR 15-6 matter is to identify the eventual audience for every fact: the investigating officer, legal reviewer, approval authority, filing authority, promotion or retention board, clearance adjudicator, or court.

Learn more about the Gonzalez & Waddington legal team and the firm’s broader command-directed investigation practice.

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.