Command Investigation

June 14, 2025

This article is meant to address a Command Investigation in the Navy and Marine Corps.

Command Investigations in the Air Force are called "Commander Directed Investigations," which are explained more at this link.

Command Investigations in the Army are called "AR 15-6 Investigations," which are explained more at this link.

A Command Investigation in the Navy/Marines is governed by JAG Instruction 5800.7G, commonly referred to as the "JAGMAN," available at this link. This article as meant as a general overview.

Command Investigations are used by the Navy/Marine Corps in certain circumstances to gather facts and make appropriate formal findings and recommendations. The following reasons are the most common reasons to appoint a Command Investigation:

When a member of the Navy/Marine Corps is suspected of misconduct
Significant property loss or destruction
Aviation Mishaps, groundings, floodings, fires, and collisions not determined to be major incidents
incidents in which a member of the naval service, as a result of possible misconduct, incurs a disease or injury that may result in permanent disability or a physical inability to perform duty for a period exceeding 24 hours, or
deaths of military personnel apparently caused by suicide or under other unusual circumstances

A Command Investigation can be conducted in conjunction with an NCIS investigation, Naval Safety Center Investigation, or other law enforcement/safety investigations. Furthermore, Command Investigations can be conducted after an NCIS/Law Enforcement/Safety Investigation to provide additional information and recommendations for the Command.

Prior to convening a Command Investigation, a Commander's JAG should be consulted. Furthermore, a Preliminary Inquiry may, or may not, precede one. If a Preliminary Inquiry is conducted, it can be completed by a Commander, or an Investigating Officer (IO). Such an inquiry should be conducted in three days and should determine if a more thorough investigation is needed. If a Command Investigation is warranted, it is usually appointed in writing, although verbal appointment is permissible.

The IO of Command Investigation is usually an officer, warrant officer, senior enlisted member, or a civilian (if the convening authority finds this is appropriate). The IO should be someone who is best qualified by reason of age, education, training, experience, length of service, and temperament. Whenever practical, the IO should outrank the subject of the inquiry.

The convening order of a Command Investigation should contain the following information:

The purpose of the investigation
The requirement to make formal findings of fact
Possible witnesses and sources of information
A request for the opinions and recommendations of the IO
A directive to consult with a legal advisor (JAG), and
A due date, typically 30 days (extensions are frequently granted

During a Command Investigation, the IO's job is to collect evidence and to answer the questions contained in the convening order. The following evidence is typically collected by an IO:

Sworn Statements
Text Messages
Videos
Photos
Text Messages
Emails
Maps
Logs
Letters
Diaries, and
Audio Files

During a Command Investigation, the IO meets with individuals with relevant information and asks questions. The IO may chose to write a memorandum summarizing the conversation, or ask the witness to provide a sworn statement. Either method is permissible. However, if an IO suspects, or reasonably should suspect, that a question will lead to an incriminating response, then the witness should be read his/her Article 31 rights. If anyone is read his/her rights by an IO, he/she should request to speak to a lawyer before proceeding, and contact an experienced military lawyer immediately. Regardless, an IO should inform the witness to not discuss his/her statement with anyone else.

After the IO of a Command Investigation has finished gathering evidence, he/she should write up a report. While the JAGMAN has examples for formatting, the following information is typically included in an IO's report:

A preliminary statement, which typically gives a BLUF, states that all relevant information was collected, that the CA’s directives were met, details difficulties encountered, details extensions requested and granted, details limited participation by any member or advisor, and any other information necessary for a complete understanding of the case
Findings of fact, based on the preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not)
Opinions, reasonable evaluations, inferences, or conclusions based on the findings of facts. Any opinion expressed should cite the findings of fact which it is based on
Recommendations, if requested, and
Enclosures

After receiving the report, the convening authority of a Command Investigation has 30 days to do one of the following:

Make a determination that the report is of no interest to anyone and keep it internal
Approve, disapprove, modify, or add to the findings of fact, opinions, and recommendations
State opinions and make recommendations, and
Comment on whether punitive or nonpunitive action is warranted

After these determinations are made, typically the General Court-Martial Convening Authority (GCMCA) reviews the Command Investigation, unless the convening authority made the determination that it should remain internal. Command Investigations should be maintained for 2 years, and then sent to the JAG investigations branch in Washington DC.

Unlike in the Army and Air Force, subjects of a Command Investigation are not allowed to submit a rebuttal before the findings and recommendations are approved. However, Command Investigations can result in Nonjudicial Punishment (Article 15), Separation Proceedings (Naval Officers, Marine Corps Officers, Enlisted Sailors, Enlisted Marines), Courts-Marial, or administrative action, including counseling, admonition, reprimand, exhortation, disapproval, criticism, censure, reproach, rebuke, extra military instruction, or the administrative withholding of privilege.

There is a lot of confirmation bias in a Command Investigation. It is rare for an IO to conduct an investigation and not substantiate the allegations they were appointed to investigate. IOs are usually inexperienced, often never having conducted an investigation before. A Sailor/Marine with a negative finding against them as part of a Command Investigation should expect some form of adverse action to be taken, which could have career altering consequences.

For all of these reasons, anyone that is questioned as part of a Command Investigation should consult with a lawyer before answering any questions. Doing so could save his/her career. Additionally, anyone facing any adverse action as the result of a Command Investigation should consult with an experienced military lawyer to start preparing a defense.

This Article was written by Attorney Matthew Barry. Attorney Barry is highly rated by former clients and has a proven track record of success.

The Law Office of Matthew Barry represents Servicemembers and Veterans worldwide. He has offices on the East Coast, West Coast, and in the Central U.S.