How Command Investigations Destroy Military Careers — And How to Stop It

So, today we’re going to be discussing military command investigations, how service members accidentally destroy their own cases. This is one of the most misunderstood areas of military law and military justice, command investigations. Most service members know that they should be concerned if CID calls or if NCIS shows up or if OSI or CID wants to interview you. But, many service members, they completely misunderstand or underestimate command investigations. They hear terms like AR 15-6 investigations, that’s in the army, or command directed investigation, or commander’s inquiry, or hey, we’re just doing a fact-finding investigation, or this is just an administrative investigation, and they assume it’s just some simple paperwork, no big deal.

Here’s the thing, that assumption can cost someone their career. It could end up taking their retirement. It could end up putting them in jail. I’ve represented service members for more than two decades. I can tell you that many of the reprimands, Article 15s, NJPs, captain’s masts, administrative separations, boards of inquiry, relief for cause actions, and even some courts-martial have started with what would appear to be a routine administrative investigation.

My name is Michael Waddington. I’m a criminal defense lawyer, military defense lawyer who’s been practicing law in military courts for over 25 years. I’ve handled cases worldwide. I’ve written over 10 books on trial strategy, cross-examination, closing arguments, and various other topics. I’m also a part-time law professor.

Today, we’re going to discuss what these investigations are, how they work, the mistakes that people make, and how you can protect yourself if you become involved in one. Let’s start with the most basic question. What exactly is a command investigation? Well, command investigation is an investigation ordered by a commander to gather facts to determine what happened and to make recommendations. Unlike CID, NCIS, OSI, or CGIS investigations, these investigations are usually conducted by military officers or senior personnel appointed by the command.

Often they are not lawyers. The investigator may be a lieutenant colonel, a major, a captain, a senior chief, a first sergeant. It really depends on the type of investigation. It depends on the situation, on who’s available. It depends on many factors, but it is going to be someone that is senior in rank.

Now, the purpose is generally not to determine criminal guilt, or at least that’s what they tell you. Generally, the purpose is to gather information and provide findings and recommendations to leadership. But here’s the important part. Here’s what you have to understand. Just because the investigation starts off administrative, does not mean the consequences will remain administrative.

Yes, it could start off as a simple investigation that could end up with criminal charges. It could end up having you facing a show cause board or board of inquiry. Administrative investigations often lead to career ending outcomes, especially if you are someone who’s retirement eligible or someone who actually wants the military to be their career. Maybe you’re 10 years in, you’re about to get promoted. Or if you have a retirement online, or if you actually want to be in the military and you’re senior ranking, one of these investigations can be super dangerous and they could be really problematic and hold your career up for a couple years even and there’s nothing you can really do about it to speed it up.

This is something that everybody needs to understand. That these can start off small and they can bloom and blossom into something much larger, much more extensive than you even anticipated. It could get really out of control really fast. What types of cases are investigated? One of the biggest misconceptions is that command investigations only deal with minor issues.

That is completely false. I’ve seen command investigations involving all sorts of crimes, including things such as sexual harassment that border on and turn into sexual assault allegations, serious fraternization allegations, improper relationships, adultery, toxic leadership complaints, misuse of government resources that can easily turn into a court-martial for fraud, waste and abuse, larceny, misappropriation of funds. All those things can start out small and turn into something big. I’ve seen travel card abuse investigations start small and turn big, financial misconduct, government vehicle misuse, even something small like a vehicle accident that happens in a foreign country could end up getting you an Article 15, a separation board, a letter reprimand, depending on what happens.

Now, we’re going to get to that later, but let me continue on. Some of the things that I see start small that get big. Security violation questions, social media misconduct, that could easily turn into something much more serious. Any type of officer, senior listed misconduct, EO complaints, this is a big one I’m seeing now. >> [snorts] >> We see EO complaints or allegations of sexism, racism, you name it, start off something small, command-driven, and it turns into, in some cases, a court-martial or administrative separation board.

Also, if you’re being investigated for a relief for cause or even simply a command climate survey follow-up or abuse of authority allegations and any other type of workplace misconduct. Here’s the thing, in these situations often this command investigation becomes the foundation that leads to or builds to further disciplinary action. I’ve seen these things start small, they gather some evidence, it gets kicked over to CID, OSI, or they use it for the basis to get warrants to your phone, to your computer, to even your house. So, they can become very serious. Now, the investigation itself is not punishment.

That’s what they tell you and it’s true, it is not technically punishment, but it creates the road map for punishment that comes later and I will tell you it surely feels like punishment. While you’re being investigated and often presumed guilty from the start, and your career’s hijacked for 6 months, 8 months, even a year or more, you’re going to feel like it’s punishment because it has real-life repercussions for you, your family, and everything that you care about. Now, we’re going to talk about the biggest mistakes that service members make. And these are things that I’ve seen over the course of my entire career starting back whenever I was a JAG back in 2001.

That’s when I came into the JAG Corps and I was a JAG for about 6 years and then I got out and went into private practice representing service members. Here’s the biggest mistake. I say it, people don’t listen, they keep making the same mistake. And here it is, you talk too much. You talk too much, you don’t know when to shut up, you think you’re making the situation better and you’re not.

You’re literally talking yourself into career-altering repercussions. Most people that we represent are Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, they’re above board, they’re senior leaders, they’ve been in the military for a long time. Now, if you’re hiring us for a command direct investigation, you’ve probably been around long enough that you care and it matters. Because if you were in for 2 years, they’re probably not going to do a command investigation. If they do, you probably don’t care much in most cases.

But if you’ve been in for 15, 20, 25 years and you’re the subject of one of these, you need to be careful. Here’s the problem. You’ve been around long enough, you believe the system enough, you’re part of the system, the military system, that you simply think that, “Oh, I’ll just explain everything. The investigator will understand.” Now, it sounds reasonable because we’re always taught tell the truth.

If you tell the truth, you’ll be fine. That is not how it works. This idea that if I just tell my side of the story, they will realize it’s all a big misunderstanding. I didn’t do anything wrong. That’s great if the investigator is fair, neutral, and doesn’t presume that you’re guilty and there’s no agenda behind it.

But in many of these cases, they presume you’re guilty, there is an agenda behind it, and they’re gathering evidence to take action against you. That’s often what happens. Often, you don’t even know what you’re being investigated for. So, you walk into one of these interviews, they ask you to come in, and you come in and start talking to them. You don’t know why you’re there, you don’t have legal counsel, and you start assuming that it’s one thing, you start volunteering information, talking too much about things that don’t matter, and then you start giving the investigating officer more information.

I’ve seen people walk into these interviews instead of getting a lawyer. Like, if you can lose your retirement, your two, three, four million-dollar retirement, depending on how long you’ve been in, that’s what it’s going to be worth over the course of your lifetime. You need to think twice before walking into investigation. Even if you’re innocent, even if you’ve done nothing wrong. One of the things that we do is we’ll reach out to the investigator on behalf of our clients and say, “Hey, we represent this person.

We’d love to cooperate, but we’re advising him to try to get a copy of the questions. We want to figure out make sure that he does everything by the book and we can help you out the best we can.” What often happens is we advise you to not make a statement. Once we get the questions, sometimes we do answer the questions, but at least it’s something that is thought through and it’s being filtered through us. By walking in volunteering to make a statement without a lawyer, you’re really setting yourself up for failure.

You’re creating problems that didn’t exist before the interview, and you still have to deal with the original questions in the interview. Now, even if you invoke they’re still stuck with the main questions. And if they’re out to get you, they’re going to probably substantiate those questions anyway. They can do that without you volunteering to help them substantiate the allegations. The other problem that I see is when people start talking too much, if the investigating officer thinks you’re lying or you’re not truthful or that you’re guilty, they’ll chalk it up as you’re just lying to get out of it.

You end up facing a charge in some cases of perjury, false official statement, obstruction of justice, other serious charges. Those are all felonies, by the way. Every one of them carries approximately 5 years in prison, and it’s a federal felony conviction if you’re convicted of something such as Article 107, false official statement. Even if you didn’t lie, you can be accused of lying, and those charges are often very difficult to deal with, want to be facing a court-martial for something like that. I have seen many investigations become significantly worse because of information provided by the person being investigated.

This happens far more than people realize. The next thing I want to talk about is this: Witnesses versus suspects. If you are being questioned, you can call it whatever you want. You could be like, “I’m not a suspect. I’m just a subject.”

They’re synonymous in most cases. In terms of a command directed investigation, if you’re the suspect, you are basically the person that they’re investigating. So, let’s just call it the suspect. You’re suspected of doing something wrong. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be having this investigation.

A lot of times people just think it’s something simple. They think you did something wrong. With that being said, one of the first questions I ask a client if they went in and talked to the investigator, what did they tell you your status was? Did they say you’re a witness, a subject, a suspect? It matters sometimes and sometimes it doesn’t.

And I’ll tell you the one time that it does matter. If you are just a witness and they did not read you your rights, then generally speaking, doesn’t mean you can’t become a suspect, but generally speaking, they believe you have information that someone else did something. A subject and a suspect, I think are very synonymous. That means you are believed to have committed some sort of misconduct or something you did is being investigated. So, just act like you’re being accused of something that could hurt your career, they could take away your retirement, they could end up in non-judicial punishment or something administrative, and you should reach out to a military defense lawyer.

You can go to JAG. I will tell you doing this many years, sometimes JAG’s helpful, sometimes they’re not. Every JAG is different. Many defense offices will not help you. There are some defense offices who won’t even help you if you’re facing court-martial.

Uh for example, in the Army, if you go down to TDS, you’ll be lucky if you can get in to talk to anyone. If you’re just under investigation for an administrative investigation, they’re probably not going to talk to you. If you’re lucky, you could get a really good TDS lawyer, which is kind of few and far between for this. They’re probably not going to give you someone. You’re very likely going to be blown off and told to go talk to legal assistance, where you may get some help over there, maybe not, but you’re probably going to be on your own is the bottom line.

I know the Air Force does provide a little better support, in my opinion. The ADCs they have over there, they tend to be a little more vetted than other branches, and they tend to have a little more experience, but they’re very short-staffed. The ADCs, they work extensive hours. They’re often not there because they’re in court in other states, and sometimes other countries. So, if you can get someone like that to help you, that’s fine.

You can also reach out to civilian lawyers. I would reach out to someone if you’re looking to You’re going to have to pay them, but it might be worth your time, as I’m going to get into later, cuz if you make a bunch of mistakes, and you screw things up, you could literally have destroyed your ability to retire, or your ability to promote, or ability to recover, depending on how you handle this. So, what you don’t want to do is go get some half-assed advice from the free military lawyer who’s rushing from court to court, or doesn’t really have the time or energy, or doesn’t care. You can end up in a very bad position. You also have to be very careful if you go to a civilian lawyer who doesn’t really have time, they’re just trying to pick up a few hundred dollars, or charge some super low fee to help you do a rebuttal, and they crank out some one-page rebuttal, or just tell you to write the rebuttal, and then you write it, and then they submit it, and it’s filled with admissions, confessions, and other incriminating information.

You’re better off not even hiring that person. So, at our firm, we do spend a lot of time doing rebuttals. They’re expensive. I will tell you that up front. You could call for a free consultation, we could discuss that with you.

But, to think it through, to review all the evidence, to advise you, and to write a thorough memorandum that doesn’t screw you in the end, is something that is really worth your time and energy, and your investment, in my opinion. We’ve saved a lot of people’s careers, and set a lot of people up for success, depending on the facts, obviously. Not every case is the same. Just by properly advising and vetting, and helping them write and craft their response, and doing it strategically, and making sure that nothing we do will hurt them if possible in the future. So, the next thing that we want to talk about and this ties into what I was just saying, getting a civilian lawyer involved, getting a military lawyer involved.

You need to have a lawyer involved. This is an official legal proceeding. It might not be a court-martial, but you are officially being investigated if you’re the suspect or the subject of an investigation. That means that what’s going on could have serious legal, financial, career implications. So, when I say it’s official, it doesn’t mean it’s an official criminal investigation.

I mean it’s official in the sense that it can have official long-term repercussions on your career and your family. So, you need to take it seriously. Here are some of the most common questions. Investigator wants a statement, should I provide one? And the answer is the same as lawyers always give and people get annoyed with this, but it really depends.

It depends on so many factors. Just providing a statement because you feel guilty or you think it’s the right thing to do without getting legal advice is often the wrong answer. Sometimes we should give a statement, sometimes we shouldn’t. Sometimes giving a statement could have catastrophic repercussions for you and your career. It could literally end up putting you in jail and making you lose your retirement.

I’ve seen some very terrible statements, rebuttals that have been made both by lawyers and by clients. So, often when we get hired on a case, they tell us, “Oh, I put together a rebuttal.” Or someone helped me with the rebuttal. I look at the thing and I’m thinking, “This is terrible. We have to literally tear it apart and start from scratch with a very strategic long-term mindset strategy in place.”

Once you submit a statement, you don’t get to take it back. Once you submit a crappy rebuttal that you did using chat GPT not knowing what you’re doing and not knowing the pitfalls that you could face down the road. You cannot take it back. It becomes part of your official military record. It becomes a legal document.

It will stay in your file in some cases even after you get kicked out, even after you get court-martialed, even after you retire or get separated. When you go to try to upgrade your discharge or you go to try to get some relief, that document is there and it’s going to be hanging over you like a dark cloud. So, you can’t submit some document that’s incriminating that is blaming everyone, is admitting the things without knowing it, it’s emotional. That’s a big issue. People write emotionally.

You should not write emotionally. That’s why you need a third party to do this. And they submit this thing and then they wonder why they can’t get their discharge upgraded. Well, because part of your official record is that terrible rebuttal that you wrote or that you had AI write or that you had your wife or husband write or you had some lawyer that doesn’t know what they’re doing right. It’s in there and you can’t come back and contradict it and be like, “Oh, I’m sorry.

I didn’t mean to write that. Here’s what really happened.” That is why your rebuttal and your response to one of these investigations, cuz you can rebut these investigations in many situations even before they try to separate you, even before they give you a letter of reprimand or hit you with a Article 15 or NJP or something like that. Many of these rebuttals allow you to rebut the findings of fact. That’s something that most people don’t realize.

They just accept the findings of fact. Sometimes you get 3, 5, 10 days. You can ask for more in many cases. But you have to be very careful. You have to read the document that you’re given.

And if you’re allowed to rebut the investigation or respond to it, it’s often a good idea to do that if you can without incriminating yourself. So, here’s the places where your statement is going to appear. It’s going to end up in your general officer memorandum of reprimand or GOMOR package, in your letter of reprimand package, in your Article 15 paperwork. It’s going to show up at your administrative separation board, the board of inquiry. It’s going to show up at security clearance proceedings down the line.

Once it’s in writing, it follows you. It’s like that movie, I don’t know if any of you’ve seen that, it follows. You can’t get rid of it. It’ll keep coming up, keep haunting you for the rest of your career. It could even show up in a court-martial.

I’ve had letters of reprimand rebuttals that were submitted used against clients at courts-martial. Eventually, the client gets court-martialed. They’re up there saying, “Oh, this is a mistake. It will never happen again.” Well, the prosecutor, if they’re on the ball, they’ll be like, “Oh, that’s funny.

That’s what he said in his other two letter of reprimand rebuttals. Here his exact words.” And they’ll offer that as an exhibit. They can put it in in sentencing against you at a court-martial. And so, every sentence matters.

Now, again, we’re in the world of AI, so some of you say, “Well, I’ll have AI help me write it.” I I tell this to everyone that use AI, you should not be using AI. If your lawyer uses AI to do some things, fine. They better know what the hell they’re doing, but garbage in, when it comes to AI, garbage out. We get garbage Article 15 rebuttals, statements, letters from clients all the time.

They’re like, “Hey, here’s this document. I could tell AI wrote it, but garbage out.” If you put garbage into the AI and your rebuttal is trash and what you’re saying is admitting to crimes, just cuz AI makes it sound better, doesn’t mean that it’s not going to hurt you. You need a third party to objectively looking at it without emotion, calmly, motionless, and looking at it strategically with a legal mindset. So, people often spend 20 minutes writing a statement that they put into these rebuttals, that they put in for these investigations, and that crappy statement follows them for the rest of their career and even after their career.

So, spend the money, spend the time, reach out to someone who knows what they’re doing to help you. Next question, can a command investigation become a criminal case? Absolutely. This is one of the biggest myths I hear. Oh, it’s only administrative.

And maybe sometimes a client goes and talks to their spouse, oh, it’s an administrative investigation. We’re not going to spend our money on that. Well, it could turn into a criminal investigation. It could also take away your career, your livelihood, could give you an other than honorable discharge if it ends up there. So, I wouldn’t take any of these lightly.

But, these investigations is start administrative. They turn criminal more often than people realize. A command investigation can uncover information suggesting criminal misconduct. I had one recently where it started out as adultery situation. Well, some statements were made.

Some allegations were made against both parties. The parties were lying. They were obstructing justice, allegedly. Next thing you evidence comes out that shows that there was false statements made. Now, it’s in the hands of CID.

So, now CID’s involved. And now you’re not only under investigation for adultery and all the other stuff, you’re under investigation for obstruction of justice, conspiring to obstruct justice, false official statement, you name it. Connick can be coming. And then CID, NCIS, OSI, and SEGEUS are involved. Before you know it, Ostick, the special trial counsel, military prosecutors, and other federal law enforcement agencies are involved.

This is one of the main reasons that a military service member should never assume that administrative investigation is harmless. What begins as a command inquiry or investigation, Even if it’s small and it’s being done by some O3, it can quickly evolve into something much more serious. And what you say in this investigation, like in that example I gave you, can come back to haunt you at a court-martial. It can come back to haunt you at an administrative or separation board or BOI, and it can haunt you for years and be catastrophic. So, you should never lie to investigators, should never lie to anyone, you shouldn’t be lying to your lawyer or to the court.

And so many people make false statements in their rebuttals thinking they’re not going to get caught. And that’s one of the biggest ways that I see people getting burned by submitting these rebuttals without talking to lawyer. They think they’re just going to lie their way out of it or misstate facts. Wrong answer. So, how do command investigations lead to reprimands, Article 15s, and separations?

Well, what happens is the investigator completes the report. The report contains findings. And they’re very scripted out. Like the commander will tell the investigator, “Here’s what I think happened. You can expand it with my permission, but you’re going to answer each and every one of these questions.

Did these things occur? Do some fact-finding, do some analysis, and then give me your recommendation.” Now, this is again often coming from someone who’s not a lawyer. So, some random captain who’s artillery officer is out there with no legal training is out there investigating you, and they’re making legal recommendations that could affect your career. They could recommend court-martial, they could recommend nothing, they could recommend separation, Article 15.

Then that report is forwarded to the command. Now, the commander has a document that often spans dozens or even hundreds of pages. They’re often 95 to 300 pages these things. And in there, we have witness interviews, sometimes, which is not good, we have summaries of witness interviews, meaning we don’t actually have the words of the person that is making the statement about you or against you. It’s a summary based on what the investigating officer thinks happened or was said, which can come back to bite you, especially if the investigator’s biased.

There’s documents, there’s evidence, there’s emails, text messages, screenshots, photos, videos, military policies and regulations. You have the recommendations in there as well. Commanders heavily rely on these findings and on these recommendations. They’re not going to go back out and reinvestigate. So, if you are being investigated and you put some information in there, you don’t do it properly, and they recommend some adverse administrative action or court-martial or whatever, the command and JAG will look at that and take it very seriously, especially if it’s going to be kept on the administrative side.

And this is how general officer memorandums of reprimand and high-level reprimands, letters of reprimand start. This is where Article 15 start and where administrative separations start. By the time many service members call an experienced military defense lawyer, the investigation’s finished. The findings have not been challenged or rebutted. You’ve either made a statement or you didn’t, and the report is done.

It’s ready to go. The command has formed their opinions, and this is why timing matters. The second you hear that you were under investigation, that there’s an investigation going on, is the second you need to get on Google or AI and start doing research on military civilian military defense lawyers, people to hire who are experienced with these types of investigations with letters of reprimand. Most people think lawyer, money. That’s true.

You do have to pay lawyers. Lawyers can save you if they do the job well and the facts are there, can save your career, they can save you a lot of money in the long run. Not every time, there’s nothing guaranteed. However, they can at least make sure that you don’t shoot yourself in the foot. Most people wait too long to hire a lawyer.

Most people wait until Most people wait till they actually have the reprimand and it’s due in 2 days. They maybe will call someone, call a friend, mom and dad, whatever. Their wife takes it and is like, “What the heck? You should have responded to this, honey.” Or they wait until they have the Article 15 in hand.

Or they wait until they’ve been notified of a separation. They got the board of inquiry or the adsep paperwork in their hand and now they’re being told they’re being kicked out and they’re going to lose their retirement or they’re going to lose their job. The reality is that some of the most important decisions have already happened before these events occurred. A lawyer could have been able to help you evaluate, “Should I submit a statement? What should I submit?”

Get involved and engage with the person doing the investigation. Maybe determining whether or not you should submit your answers in writing, whether you should go in and provide text messages, whether you should provide documents to support your position, how to best do that without incriminating you. And the lawyer actually acts as a shield. They’re a sword and a shield for you. They can figure out what evidence will hurt you and then they can speak on your behalf in many situations so you’re not in a situation where you’re putting your foot in your mouth.

They could also advise you on long-term risks, whether you should just not submit a statement, whether there’s evidence out there that can even hurt you more, and how to do risk mitigation and advise you on that. The earlier you understand the landscape, the more options you generally have. Let’s talk about advice that we give to anyone who’s under investigation. So, imagine you’re under investigation right now. You’re the subject or the suspect of a command investigation.

Couple things you need to do. You need to take it seriously. Don’t assume that it’s administrative, so it’s harmless. Don’t assume investigators are just trying to clear your name. Very rarely, even if they’re your buddy or you think they’re your buddy, they’re not trying to clear your name.

They’re being ordered to investigate and collect evidence to be used against you. Don’t assume that talking more helps. Don’t speculate. Don’t guess. Don’t fill in gaps.

Do not try to outsmart the process or the investigator. That’s another mistake I see people make all the time. By the time they interview you, they’ve probably been interviewed five, 10, 20 other people, and they have information that they can compare your statement with. They may have their mind made up. And they may be asking you questions that you’re absolutely unprepared to answer, or that answering them, once you’re already in the room talking, will 100% incriminate you or put you in a position where you’re forced to explain or just fall on your sword.

Another thing you should not do is assume that, “Oh, I’m falling on my sword. I’m going to be an officer. I’m going to take responsibility, take ownership.” That is something you need to think about and talk to a lawyer about. Now, I have no problem with people taking ownership over personal life decisions, but you need to be careful because just cuz you take ownership doesn’t mean you’re not admitting to a crime.

Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be kicked out. Let’s say you did something wrong and you committed an affair, lied about it, lied to your spouse, or having sex with some lower enlisted person, even if it’s consensual. Taking ownership is something you need to do with God, if you believe in God, or with your pastor, or with a psychologist, or with your family. It doesn’t mean you need to go make it right with the Army or the Navy. Because if you’re going in there admitting to crimes, you’re not making anything right.

They’re basically going to be taking away everything you worked for and giving you the boot with a bad discharge, taking away all your benefits. You’re not even going to be able to go to the VA and things like that. So, what I’m saying is before you decide to quote take ownership and be an officer, be a man, be a woman, whatever you want to say, talk to a lawyer about it because you have to do risk analysis, risk mitigation. That’s what we do as lawyers. We advise you, help steer you so that you can take ownership in your own private way without losing everything.

Do not go in there and try to explain everything to your co-workers, to your friends. The more you talk, the more likely you’re going down. Let me repeat that. The more you talk about the situation, the more likely you’re going down. In almost all of my cases, my law partner Alexandra, and she’s also my wife, we talk about this, and it’s common amongst all defense lawyers.

The biggest liability in most of our cases is our client’s mouth. It’s what they’ve done, what they said. I can deal with alleged victims or people accusing you or law enforcement. I can usually deal with that. I can deal with the DNA or the forensics in many cases, at least try to mitigate it.

But what I can’t mitigate is you running your mouth, making inconsistent statements, saying things that will then be moved against you. That’s often the biggest wrong move that puts people in really bad positions that are not recoverable. Let me talk about some examples of how simple statements can turn into a general officer memorandum of reprimand, a letter reprimand from an admiral, a Article 15, or even a separation. The first one is this. Many people believe that in military investigations, only guilty people get a lawyer, and only guilty people make mistakes when they talk to investigators because after all, I didn’t do it, right?

So, I’ll be able to talk my way out of it. That is false. Many service members create significant problems for themselves because they think that making a statement is helping them. For example, a service member accused of having an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate, the investigator asks if they ever communicated outside of work. The service member wants to be honest, right?

So, they’re like, “Well, we texted sometimes, but it was mostly professional.” Well, we now have an admission that the person texted that person, that private communications occurred, and then you’re probably not being 100% honest. That can form the basis for a search warrant or a search authorization from your command. And then they’re going to be able to tell straight up in their face whether it was consensual, whether it was inappropriate, whatever you said, they’re going to find ways to knock it down. Then the investigation shifts from whether contact occurred to the nature of it and whether you lied about it.

So, imagine a service member accused of violating a regulation or a policy. The investigator asks if they knew about the policy, and the person wanting to take ownership will say, “Well, I knew or should have known, and I should have read it more carefully.” They think they’re showing humility. They think that they’re taking ownership, but they’re not. The investigator may hear something completely different.

They may hear an admission that the member knew of the order, knew of the regulation, failed to comply with a known order or directive, and then try to weasel their way out of it. But here’s another example. Imagine a service member accused of creating a hostile work environment. We’re seeing these all the time. Very common, especially with O-4s, O-5s, O-6s, E-4 mafia, you know, E-4s to get together and make complaints.

That’s very common. It’s always been a thing since I was in the military, even. And they make allegations. Now, you can accuse a senior, decorated, super by-the-book officer of something that’s completely bogus, and you’re going to be under investigation. So, let’s say you’re accused of hostile work environment, and you’re a colonel, right?

And instead of simply addressing the allegation, the colonel will often go in there and discuss every conflict they’ve had over the past 3 years, start laying out the motives of all these people, talking about everything they’ve done. Now, the investigator contains numerous new allegations that were never part of the original complaint. They think you’re blaming, quote, the victim. They think, “Hey, we need to go out and reach out to these other people.” This seems like this colonel is targeting and retaliating against these lower service members, and you’re going to end up with a letter of reprimand.

You should not lie in an investigation. You should not lie to your lawyer. You should not lie to the judge. You You shouldn’t be lying about anything. You either shut your mouth and get legal advice, or you say nothing.

Too many people unknowingly provide information that expands the investigation and creates new issues. One of the most dangerous assumptions is believing that if you can explain it, it’ll just help clear things up. In most cases, talking simply creates more material for the investigator to analyze and for you to be accused of lying about. I’ve seen investigations that started as relatively minor issues uh turn into reprimands, Article 15, separations because the accused person, the suspect, tried to explain everything without a strategy. This, again, is one of the main reasons that experienced civilian legal defense counsel can be valuable in determining whether to submit a statement, what to submit, and how to submit it.

Not because lawyers know it all, or military defense lawyers have magic answers. No. It’s because if you’ve been doing this as a career like I have, then you know how these investigations unfold, and you should understand which facts are important and which facts create unnecessary risk. Let’s talk about what investigators are really looking for in these command investigations. Many service members will walk into the interview thinking the investigator is trying to determine one thing.

Did it happen or not? In reality, investigators are often evaluating much more than that. They are assessing credibility. They are assessing consistency. They are looking for contradictions.

They are comparing what you said against what other people said. They are evaluating whether your version of events matches documents, emails, text messages, witness statements, and other evidence. They’re looking for admissions. Now, an admission is something you say that can hurt you and be legally detrimental, meaning they can use it against you. It can hurt you.

They’re often looking for explanations that don’t make sense. And they’re evaluating your judgment, your evasiveness, even if you think you’re being helpful. I’ve seen it where the person pushes back and they say, “Hey, that’s not what happened. Here’s what happened.” They’ll write it down as He was very defensive, very evasive, wouldn’t maintain eye contact.

His credibility is in question. One other or two other witnesses said it happened. He denied it happened. Therefore, his credibility is at issue. He said it didn’t happen.

He has a lot more to lose than these witnesses. Therefore, we think that he’s lying. His career is on the line. Therefore, it’s more likely that he’s exaggerating, lying, or shifting the blame. I see that all the time.

So, I tell my client, “So, you see, it wasn’t such a good idea to go in and say you didn’t do it cuz they basically said, ‘We think you did it by him denying it, he’s lying, and he’s trying to shift the blame.’ So, you’re probably better off not saying anything or having your lawyer write a memorandum on your behalf during the investigation, laying out legal problems and legal holes in the investigation. That’s something we do all the time for our clients. We’ll submit a legal memorandum coming from me or my law partner outlining the holes in the case, documenting inconsistencies, lies, motives, all that stuff, if that’s something that we think will help you.

It’s a big difference from having you do it and you say it. We can say it and it’s making legal arguments. You can say it, it’s called making excuses or making a confession. Many investigations involve situations where the conduct itself is not necessarily criminal, but it can quickly get there. It then becomes a question of, in many cases, poor judgment, lack of professionalism, toxic leadership concerns, policy violations, abuse of authority, or the big one that I see nowadays is perception of misconduct.

Perception of toxic leadership. It’s either toxic leadership or it’s not. If someone perceives it’s toxic and there’s nothing to back it up, then it’s not toxic. But the Army loves that phrase, the perception of misconduct. So, there’s perception of misconduct that the colonel did X, Y, and Z, but there’s no facts to back it up, but it doesn’t matter.

That’s what’s perceived. That is circular logic, but that’s something that I see all the time, particularly in Army investigations, where it doesn’t matter whether you did it or not, whether there’s any evidence. All that matters is what the rumors are and what someone perceived. And that someone who perceived it can be completely biased, a complete liar, and have a motive. So, another reason to have a lawyer be speaking on your behalf.

Another thing that we need to be careful of is service members often focus entirely on denying misconduct and they don’t understand by talking and talking the perception that the investigator’s going to have, that maybe you’re a leader that retaliated, that bullied someone who’s lower than them, you’re picking on someone who’s a subordinate, and all goes to poor leadership, and that can end up in the report as well. So, another thing you need to be careful with is inconsistencies. One of the reasons investigators are always looking for inconsistencies in what you said and comparing it to what other witnesses say or what documents say or said.

The problem is if you don’t know exactly what they’re talking about and you’re not prepared, you’ll start trying to explain away and deny these things. And that’s another way to get into big trouble because boom, you start talking, explaining away, and even if you don’t remember exactly what, they pull out the email. They start showing witness statements saying, “Hey, this witness remembers this. Your statement is different, therefore you must be lying.” You have to understand the second you are under the microscope, you are the suspect.

You are the subject. There is a presumption that you did something wrong. Even if there’s an inconsistency that has an innocent explanation or you forgot something, it’s going to look like lying. And once lying or credibility becomes an issue, the entire investigation, particularly for senior leaders and officers, becomes more difficult and it becomes about that. Now, you’re not just the guy who maybe was a toxic leader, you’re a liar.

You’re dishonest. We can’t trust you. How can we trust you in command? You said something that didn’t happen or you refuted something and it turned out we had a text message that showed it did, even if it’s twisted. This is where you get into trouble.

The purpose of this video is to give you a wake-up call. I get called every day. My wife and I talk to people every day who have unblemished records, outstanding careers, who are great patriots and great heroes. And they get put under one of these. They don’t know how to deal with it and they’re shocked.

They’re like, “I don’t understand how this can happen to me. I don’t understand how my husband or my wife, after everything that he or she did for this country, they have a top secret TS/SCI, they have all these things. They could be the mechanic for Air Force One and someone makes an allegation or you become under investigation, you’re all of a sudden the lying criminal. Don’t believe me, wait till you’re the subject of an investigation. There’s nothing improper if you have legal advice, by the way, guiding you on this and saying, “I don’t know, I don’t recall.

I don’t remember. I don’t know exactly what you’re talking about. Can I please see the documents? I don’t want to speculate. I need to go back and look into that to get you a more detailed answer.”

That’s why we often will help our clients here answer the questions if they want to, and we don’t do it while sitting in the room under the pressure of the investigating officer. We get the questions and we do with our client and help try to answer the questions and then say, “Hey, should we answer this or not? Here’s what could happen if we answer it. Here’s the can of worms we’re going to open.” make sure that the accurate answers are put down.

We can’t answer it, we make it clear we don’t know the answer to that. Period. Move on. Stop talking. Because again, once a statement is made, it becomes part of the investigation.

It becomes part of your file. It becomes part of your life and your career. It becomes a legally binding document. Investigators frequently compare every single statement, every piece of evidence against you. And they will often cherry-pick and put ones who support you on the side and then they’ll compare your statement, everything you say, against the four or five people or whatever, two or three people who say something bad about you.

You’re not given the benefit of the doubt. Now, I want to talk about five things that you can do that can make the situation much worse if you find out you’re under investigation. These mistakes I see over and over again. Mistake number one, talking to everyone about the investigation. Family, friends, co-workers, prior supervisors, current supervisors, contacting witnesses, explaining your side of the story to everyone in your cubicle, trying to gather support to show you’re a good guy, trying to figure out who complained, what happened, what was said, reaching out to people.

That conduct creates additional problems. That conduct could lead to a potential court-martial or board and makes you look guilty. It can create allegations of undue witness influence, retaliation, obstruction of justice, interfering with investigation, conspiracy to obstruct justice, meaning you’re trying to get other people to agree with you to obstruct justice. And here it does become about perception. The better approach is usually to be very careful about discussing the investigation with anyone who is not your lawyer.

I don’t mean the command JAG. So many people do that. They go talk to the command JAG cuz they know the guy or lady. Hey, here’s what’s going on. They start running their mouth.

The command JAG is not your criminal defense lawyer. They are the command JAG. They’re the lawyer for the same command who’s investigating you. So, shut your mouth, reach out to civilian military defense counsel. That’s the bottom line answer that we give.

At least get a free consultation and figure out if they can help you or not and be smarter about it. If you don’t have the money, you can go talk to legal assistance or a defense lawyer like at the DSO or TDS or ADC. The second biggest mistake for people that are under investigation deleting evidence. Now, this should be obvious, but people do it all the time. Deleting text messages, emails, social media post, destroying physical forensic evidence, destroying, deleting photographs, military records, personal records, trying to clean up records after learning of an investigation can create far more serious problems than the original allegation.

Never assume deleted information cannot be recovered. It’s so much easier now to recover deleted digital forensic evidence than it was even 2 3 years ago. They’ve gotten really good at it and they’ve gotten good at it with AI. Never assume that deletion solves the problem. And you’re committing a crime of obstruction of justice if you do it and you get caught.

And it makes you look super guilty if you’re destroying evidence right after you found out you’re under investigation. We had a guy recently that did that and that was a key piece of evidence that they used against him to show his intent, knowledge of guilt. The third biggest mistake that people make when they’re under investigation is trying to explain everything immediately to the investigator. They panic. They want to fix the problem.

They want leadership to be on their side. They go tell the leadership that happened. Then they go down to meet the investigating officer. They want to convince them they’re a really great person. I’m a great leader.

I’m a great officer. I’m a patriot. I’m going to tell you everything. What do you need to know? But they’re scared and they don’t know what’s going on.

They don’t know the facts. So they react emotionally. Now that’s understandable, but emotional decisions are often bad decisions. Important decisions should not be made while emotional or panicking. The desire to speak immediately often leads to statements people later regret.

Speak to a civilian military defense counsel. We are not emotional. We shouldn’t be. At least I’m not. I’ll leave it at me.

My self and my law partner will not react emotionally. We’ll listen to you, do a free consultation, we’ll listen to your side, review. If we’re involved in your case, then we will review your documents very objectively, very methodically, and then provide you with the best advice possible not based on emotion or fear or panic, but based on a long-term strategy with the intent to put you in the best position possible in the end. The fourth biggest mistake that people make when they’re facing an administrative investigation. They assume the investigation is minor.

This is so common. Someone says, “Oh, it’s only an AR 15-6.” That’s the Army’s command investigation. “Oh, it’s just a commander’s inquiry. No big deal.

It’s only administrative.” I hear that all the time. Then 6 months later they receive a GOMAR. They receive a letter of reprimand from an admiral or a colonel. They get their rank reduced.

They get an Article 15. Then they get separation notification or board of inquiry notification. Oh, by the way, you have 17 years in, we’re kicking your ass out with an other than honorable. You’re going to lose your benefits, your GI Bill, everything you worked for, your retirement eligibility, your job, and we’re going to make it really hard for you to get a job cuz we’re going to kick you out for misconduct and give you an other than honorable discharge. So, it isn’t minor.

If you are being questioned or the suspect or subject, it isn’t minor unless you don’t care about your life and your career, but it’s not minor. Administrative investigations frequently produce very serious, life-altering consequences. The fifth big mistake that people make when they’re under an administrative investigation or command investigation is they wait too long to get advice. They wait until the report’s completed and everything’s done and they’re sitting around twiddling their thumbs and acting like nothing happened. The problem is this.

Many opportunities disappear once the investigation is finished. And you don’t rebut it and you don’t provide information or you don’t even do anything. You just let it happen and sit there. The earlier person understands the process, the allegations, and the potential consequences, the more informed their decisions can be. That does not mean that every investigation requires hiring a civilian military defense counsel.

Sometimes the best thing to do is to shut your mouth and sit there. If you’re under a serious investigation for a serious crime and you know there’s a ton more out there, you should probably still speak to a civilian military defense counsel, but maybe you probably don’t want to be making statements. You should shut your mouth. That’s what a lot of lawyers would tell you. But, you do have to understand that no matter what, every investigation should be evaluated seriously by an outside professional attorney.

At least get a second opinion. Doesn’t mean they have to do anything. Doesn’t mean you need to hire them, but you at least need to kick it around a little bit, the idea of coming up with a plan. Because once the findings are finalized and recommendations are made, changing the outcome often becomes impossible. And that brings us back to the central theme of today’s podcast.

The most dangerous part of a command investigation is not always the investigation itself. It’s the mistakes that people make during the investigation, while the investigation’s ongoing. So, in conclusion, the most important thing to remember is that command investigations often are the beginning of a case, not the end of it. It’s not something that you should just assume will work out in your favor. A command investigation can lead to a serious reprimand, to an Article 15 or Captain’s Mast.

It can lead to separation. It can lead to an OTH discharge, a board of inquiry. It can screw up your security clearance. That means now and in the future, because you know that they’re going to look at these documents and what you submit in these investigations when you go up for your security clearance renewal. Depending on your level and depending on what you’re doing, they’re going to be looking at what you said, what you didn’t say, whether there’s information in there to rebut it, how you responded.

That becomes part of it, and people don’t realize that till they go try to renew the clearance or they go try to get a job. It can also lead to a court-martial. Yes, an administrative or command-directed investigation can lead to a court-martial. Decisions made during the earliest stages of the investigation often have consequences that last for years. If you’ve learned that you are involved in an AR 15-6 investigation, a commander-directed investigation, a command inquiry, or any other administrative investigation, take it seriously from day one.

At Gonzalez & Waddington, we represent service members worldwide in military investigations, reprimand rebuttals, Article 15, Captain Mast proceedings, administrative separation cases, boards of inquiry, and court martial cases. com or contact our office. I’m Michael Waddington. I’m a military defense lawyer who’s been practicing for over 25 years. If you have any questions, reach out to our office for a free consultation.