Commander Directed Investigations in the Military – What You Must Know in 2026

TLDR – A CDI Can Make or Break Your Military Career. Early, Strategic Defense Is Essential.

A Commander Directed Investigation (CDI) is a formal, command-ordered inquiry into alleged misconduct, policy violations, or other concerning incidents within a unit. Although CDIs are administrative (not criminal), their findings can trigger adverse administrative action, non-judicial punishment (NJP), separation boards, or even referral for more serious investigations under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Because the standard of proof is often “preponderance of the evidence,” even ambiguous or disputed allegations may result in serious career-ending consequences. Understanding how CDIs work — and securing experienced legal representation early — drastically improves your chances to protect your rights, reputation, and future in the military.

• A CDI is initiated by a commanding officer or other authorized authority under service regulations (e.g., DAFMAN 1-101 for the Air Force).
• The appointed Investigating Officer (IO) gathers evidence, interviews witnesses, and issues a report — often with minimal due process protections.
• Findings from a CDI can lead to administrative actions, negative evaluations, separation, or even court-martial referrals.
• You may waive or improperly handle your rights if you respond without counsel — statements given to the IO can be used as official evidence under UCMJ Article 107.
• Early legal intervention — before giving statements or submitting evidence — is critical. A proactive strategy can preserve your career and protect future opportunities.

What Is a Commander Directed Investigation?

A CDI is a command-level administrative investigation authorized by a commander (or other appropriate authority) to examine incidents, allegations, or policy violations within a unit. It is designed for fact-finding — not for criminal prosecution — though its findings may lead to administrative or even UCMJ-based disciplinary action.

Many branches of the military use CDIs or similar mechanisms under different names (e.g., “command investigations,” “administrative investigations,” or regulations such as Army Regulation 15-6 for the U.S. Army). Regardless of name or branch, the purpose is the same: gather facts, interview witnesses, assemble evidence, and provide findings that leadership can use to make decisions.

Why Commands Use CDIs

CDIs give commanders a flexible, rapid tool to respond to a wide range of issues — from misconduct, policy violations, personnel disputes, safety incidents, to alleged administrative problems. Because not every issue merits a full criminal investigation or immediate disciplinary action, CDIs provide a middle ground for fact-finding and command-level decision making.

Moreover, CDI findings can support a variety of command actions, such as non-judicial punishment (NJP), adverse evaluations, reprimands, administrative separations, or referral for more serious proceedings under the UCMJ.

Typical Triggers for a CDI

CDIs may be initiated for a wide range of alleged issues, including but not limited to:

• Allegations of misconduct, unprofessional behavior, insubordination, or policy violations within a unit.
• Command climate concerns, harassment or discrimination complaints (when not appropriate for IG or OSI/NCIS/CGIS direct investigation).
• Minor to moderate infractions that do not rise to criminal offenses but implicate discipline, unit cohesion, or order and discipline.
• Accidents, safety incidents, property loss, or other administrative losses where there is a need for fact-finding.
• Performance or suitability issues, clearance concerns, or allegations that, if substantiated, may affect security, trust, or unit readiness.

How the CDI Process Works: What to Expect

Appointment of Investigating Officer (IO)

The commanding officer or appointing authority selects an IO — frequently another officer or senior NCO — to conduct the investigation. By regulation (for example under DAFMAN 1-101 for the Air Force), the IO must usually be equal or senior in rank to the subject.

Scope, Objectives, and Timeline

The appointment order should define the scope and purpose of the CDI — what allegations or issues are under review, witnesses to interview, and what evidence to gather. Under some service-specific manuals, such as DAFMAN 1-101, timelines are recommended though extensions are possible.

Evidence Collection & Interviews

The IO gathers available evidence: witness statements, written declarations, electronic communications (emails, texts, chat logs), documents, duty logs, photos or video if relevant, and any other material relevant to the inquiry.

Witnesses may be ordered to provide statements. The subject of the CDI may be asked to give a statement — but anything they say becomes an official record and may be used under UCMJ rules (e.g., false statement statutes).

Investigation Report & Command Decision

Once evidence gathering is complete, the IO drafts an investigation report describing findings, witness statements, and conclusions (substantiated, unsubstantiated, or inconclusive). That report is forwarded to the appointing or approval authority, who may take action.

The approval authority may adopt, modify, or reject the conclusions of the IO. The command has wide discretion. CDIs are rarely neutral fact-finding missions — they are tools to support command decisions.

Potential Consequences of a CDI

• No action if allegations are unsubstantiated or disproven.
• Administrative or non-judicial punishment (counseling, reprimand, loss of privileges, Article 15/NJP).
• Negative evaluations, adverse fitness reports, or impact on promotions and assignments.
• Referral to a separation board or administrative discharge process.
• Referral for further criminal or UCMJ investigation (e.g., to OSI, CID, NCIS, CGIS).
• Impact on security clearance, veteran benefits, and civilian career prospects post-service.

Realistic Scenarios That Often Trigger CDIs

Example 1 – Alleged “Unprofessional Conduct” Based on Text/Chat Messages

A Guardian or Airman is accused of unprofessional messages exchanged in a group chat. The command orders a CDI. The IO collects chat logs, interviews subordinates, and draws conclusions. Without timely review and context, an innocent conversation could be painted as misconduct — leading to adverse action or even separation.

Example 2 – Safety Incident or On-Base Accident With Conflicting Witness Statements

Following a minor accident or mishap (vehicle accident, safety violation, property damage), the command launches a CDI. Some witnesses say improper conduct; others say the incident was due to poor maintenance or equipment failure. A strong defense may challenge inconsistencies and shift the narrative toward a mechanical or environmental cause.

Example 3 – Allegations of Policy Violation Without Criminal Elements (e.g. Non-Regulatory Fraternization, Misuse of Property, Administrative Violations)

A member is accused of fraternization or misuse of property. The CDI gathers statements and files a report. With proper representation, witnesses may clarify context, challenge assumptions, and prevent unwarranted administrative action.

Example 4 – Command Climate Complaints or Leadership Allegations Based on Anonymous Feedback

After an anonymous complaint about toxic leadership or harassment climate, the command orders a CDI into the command environment. Evidence may be largely based on perceptions or ambiguous statements. A defensive strategy that includes contextual facts, performance history, and leadership evaluations may prevent adverse findings.

Example 5 – Alleged Security or Suitability Concern (e.g. Clearance Flags, Financial Issues, Behavioral Red Flags)

A service member’s financial problems or off-duty behavior triggers a CDI. The investigation focuses on suitability and clearance risk. With mitigation evidence — financial counselling, character statements, professional support — the member may avoid adverse administrative action or separation.

Five Crucial Defense Tips for Service Members Facing a CDI

• Tip 1 – Immediately preserve all potentially relevant evidence. Save emails, chat logs, text messages, duty logs, memos, orders, and any documentation that might support your version of events or shed doubt on allegations.
• Tip 2 – Do not make spontaneous statements to the IO without counsel. Anything you say can be used against you. Request representation before providing any statements or written responses.
• Tip 3 – Identify and prepare credible witnesses quickly. Witnesses who observed events, have context, or can contradict allegations should be interviewed and prepared to assist your defense.
• Tip 4 – Challenge procedural or evidentiary flaws in the CDI. Many IOs are not experienced investigators; mistakes in evidence collection, witness credibility assessment, or documentation can undermine the investigation.
• Tip 5 – Work with experienced military defense counsel familiar with CDIs and follow-on administrative or UCMJ consequences. Counsel ensures correct handling of Article 31(b) rights, proper responses, and strategic mitigation or rebuttal.

Military Law Resources

One of the primary policy documents governing CDIs in the U.S. Air Force and Space Force is:
DAFMAN 1-101 – Commander Directed Investigations

Why Experienced Legal Representation Matters

Because CDIs operate under administrative rules — not criminal standards — the process can be unpredictable, subject to informal procedures, and heavily influenced by command discretion. Command investigations are rarely neutral; they serve command interests. Experienced civilian defense counsel — such as at Gonzalez & Waddington — bring independence and legal expertise, helping you challenge bias, procedural flaws, and unfair conclusions before they become career-ending realities.

➤ Consult with seasoned military-defense attorneys to protect your rights and future.

Commander Directed Investigations (CDI) – Frequently Asked Questions