Investigations -- Part 1: Why Official Inquiries Are Needed

This is the first of a two-part discussion of why an official investigation is often helpful to the Soldier, the unit, and the United States Army, and how this useful tool can best be conducted. The articles are designed for two audiences the commander who is wary of intrusive or distracting investigations that lack a positive goal, and the leader who is likely to be tagged as a units next investigating officer IO and who may not have any relevant experience investigating. It will delve into why it is almost always in the best interests of the Soldier, the unit, and the Army to investigate when a commander asks, How did this happen and the answer is We dont exactly know. Part II, to be published in the January-April 2011 issue, will focus on the mechanics and tactics, techniques, and procedures for executing lawful, thorough, and productive investigations. Under Rule 303 of the Manual for Courts-Martial United States, commanders are authorized to commit time and effort to investigating misconduct. It is a basic application of command authority to ensure the good order and discipline of the unit. The gist of this authority is the ability of the immediate commander, who has direct contact with and knowledge about a particular Soldier, to ask relevant questions to jump-start a more formal investigation or help drive an efficient and effective decision. Asking questions might take the shape of an investigation under Army Regulation AR 15-6, Procedures for Investigating Officers and Boards of Officers a formal Criminal Investigation Division inquiry driven by law enforcement specialists or an immediate administrative response by the commander. Not all fact-finding efforts are about criminal misconduct, but fact-finding inquiries are permitted or even encouraged, even if the event or incident in question is not likely to lead to a court-martial. Before we get to how we investigate Part II, it is equally important to know why we investigate Part I.