MILITARY COMMAND INVESTIGATIONS

Preliminary Inquiries Under R.C.M. 303 ( Applies to All Branches): Under Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 303, when a commander receives information that a service member may have committed an offense under the UCMJ, the commander must make—or cause to be made—a preliminary inquiry into the suspected offense. The rule provides broad discretion as to how the inquiry is conducted and does not prescribe a specific format or investigative method. However, under R.C.M. 303A, when an allegation may involve a covered offense—such as sexual assault, domestic violence, murder, or other serious crimes—the matter must be promptly reported to the Office of Special Trial Counsel (OSTC). Only the OSTC has authority to determine whether an offense is covered and whether OSTC will retain prosecutorial authority.

Navy and Marine Corps: In the Navy and Marine Corps, a different type of preliminary inquiry under the JAGMAN is authorized to determine if an “administrative investigation” is warranted. However, misconduct is not one of the authorized purposes. That limitation does not mean misconduct goes unexamined. When minor misconduct does not require NCIS involvement—the command typically proceeds under R.C.M. 303, informal command fact-finding and direct disciplinary authority.

Army: While the Army continues to use preliminary inquiries as an initial screening tool, AR 27-10 provides additional guidance, including cautioning against interviewing suspected service members during the preliminary stage and emphasizing compliance with Article 31 rights. Allegations of misconduct that require formal fact-finding are commonly referred to an AR 15-6 investigation (see below), while more serious offenses—particularly those potentially qualifying as covered offenses—are referred to OSTC and/or Army CID.

Air Force: The Air Force relies primarily on R.C.M. 303 itself and does not create a separate, detailed preliminary-inquiry framework comparable to the Army or Navy/Marine Corps. In practice, Air Force matters tend to move quickly from initial command awareness into law enforcement, legal office, or OSTC channels, rather than extended commander-driven preliminary inquiries.

Coast Guard: In the Coast Guard, preliminary inquiries under R.C.M. 303 are informal screening tools used to assess suspected misconduct and determine disposition.

DoD Instruction 1020.03 defines sexual harassment as:

A form of sex-based discrimination involving unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature when:

1. Submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of a person’s job, pay, or career;
2. Submission to or rejection of such conduct is used as a basis for employment or career decisions affecting the person; or
3. Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.

This definition applies regardless of rank, position, or service and covers conduct occurring in the workplace, during duty-related activities, or in circumstances that affect the military work environment.

Navy and Marine Corps: In the Navy and Marine Corps, sexual harassment (distinct from sexual assault) is handled through the command Equal Opportunity and harassment framework under OPNAVINST 5354.1J (Navy) and MCO 5354.1G (Marine Corps), rather than through criminal investigation. Although the JAGMAN generally limits the use of command investigations for misconduct, it expressly allows service-specific regulations to control, making sexual harassment investigations a recognized exception. For formal complaints, the commander with jurisdiction must promptly evaluate whether to dismiss, refer, or accept the complaint and, if accepted, appoint an investigating officer to conduct an administrative investigation focused on whether the conduct meets the policy definition of sexual harassment. The investigation is administrative—not criminal—and may inform, but does not itself impose, disciplinary action. Both the complainant and the alleged offender must be notified of the outcome and are afforded the right to administratively appeal the finding within 30 days, while commanders retain discretion to take appropriate administrative or disciplinary action during the process.

Army: In the Army, formal sexual harassment complaints are investigated as AR 15-6 administrative investigations under AR 600-52, with a defined right for both parties to appeal the administrative finding in writing within 30 duty days, through a two-level command appeal process while commanders retain discretion to take appropriate administrative or disciplinary action during the process

Air Force: In the Air Force, under DAFI 36-2710, sexual harassment complaints are investigated administratively under the Equal Opportunity program. A commander appoints a qualified EO investigator to determine whether policy was violated. Sexual harassment findings are reviewed through command and Equal Opportunity channels, and there is no standalone right to appeal the administrative finding itself. A founded finding leads to administrative and command action—not a criminal case. The commander determines appropriate consequences, which can range from counseling to NJP or separation. Law enforcement is involved only if the facts show a separate crime.

Coast Guard: The Coast Guard investigates sexual harassment complaints through a consolidated administrative EO process. While findings may support punishment or separation, there is no mandatory flag or legal hold, and no robust, codified appeal process comparable to the Army or Navy. Personnel restrictions remain discretionary and must be independently justified.

DoD Instruction 1350.02: Equal Opportunity (EO) investigations address allegations of unlawful discrimination, harassment (other than sexual harassment), retaliation, and hostile work environment based on protected characteristics such as race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity), national origin, or sexual orientation.

Under DoD Equal Opportunity policy, a hostile work environment exists when unwelcome conduct, whether verbal, nonverbal, or physical:

• is severe or pervasive, and
• has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.

A hostile work environment may be based on a protected characteristic (such as race, religion, sex, national origin, or sexual orientation), but it is not limited to those categories. Conduct that is abusive, degrading, humiliating, or threatening may qualify as a hostile work environment even when it is not explicitly tied to race, sex, or another protected class, particularly when it reflects abuse of authority, persistent harassment, or corrosive command climate issues.

EO investigations assess the totality of the circumstances, including:

• frequency of the conduct,
• severity,
• whether it was physically threatening or humiliating,
• whether it unreasonably interfered with duty performance, and
• the impact on the workplace or unit climate.

Navy and Marine Corps: In the Navy and Marine Corps, Equal Opportunity complaints are handled under the command EO framework governed by OPNAVINST 5354.1J (Navy) and MCO 5354.1G (Marine Corps). EO complaints may be submitted formally or informally. For formal complaints, the commander with jurisdiction must evaluate whether to dismiss, refer, or accept the complaint and, if accepted, appoint an investigating officer to conduct an administrative investigation into whether EO policy was violated. Although the JAGMAN generally restricts command investigations focused on misconduct, EO investigations are a recognized exception, as both the Navy and Marine Corps EO regulations expressly control the process. Both the complainant and the alleged offender are notified of the outcome and may administratively appeal the EO finding within 30 days. As with sexual harassment cases, commanders are not required to pause appropriate administrative or disciplinary action while an appeal is pending.

Army: In the Army, Equal Opportunity complaints are governed primarily by AR 600-20 (Army Command Policy). Formal EO complaints are typically investigated through an AR 15-6 administrative investigation, with an appointed investigating officer responsible for determining whether EO policy was violated. Unlike sexual harassment complaints under AR 600-52, EO complaints do not have a standalone, codified multi-level appeal process for the administrative finding itself.

Air Force: In the Air Force, Equal Opportunity investigations are conducted under DAFI 36-2710 through the EO program. Upon acceptance of a formal complaint, the commander ensures the matter is investigated by a qualified EO investigator, who determines whether Air Force and DoD EO policy was violated. EO findings are reviewed through command and EO oversight channels, but the Air Force does not provide a separate, guaranteed right to appeal the EO finding itself.

Coast Guard: The Coast Guard investigates sexual harassment complaints through a consolidated administrative EO process. While findings may support punishment or separation, there is no mandatory flag or legal hold, and no robust, codified appeal process comparable to the Army or Navy. Personnel restrictions remain discretionary and must be independently justified.

An AR 15-6 investigation is the Army’s primary formal administrative investigation used to examine allegations of misconduct, leadership failures, or other matters requiring structured fact-finding that do not fall under the purview of high level misconduct required to be investigated by Army CID. Unlike other branches, the Army routinely relies on AR 15-6 investigations as a front-end tool that can directly support disciplinary or adverse administrative action.

An AR 15-6 investigation is command-directed. The appointing authority selects an Investigating Officer (IO) who is tasked with gathering evidence, interviewing witnesses, and making written findings and recommendations. Unlike other branches, the scope of this command administrative investigation is not limited to EO or Sexual Harassment investigations. However, the right to rebut findings depend on whether they apply to officers, or if they are based on SHARP. 

→ Related pages:

• Adverse Command Investigation Findings

Command investigations are serious matters. If you are reading this, you likely know it. 

→ Related pages:

• Adverse Command Investigation Findings
• Under Investigation?
• Command Investigation