AR 15-6 Update

July 20, 2025

There was an AR 15-6 update on 22 June 2025. The new regulation is available at this link. This article is meant to address the recent AR 15-6 update. Click here for a more detailed discussion of the AR 15-6 investigation process.

AR 15-6 is one of the most important Army Regulations. Not only does it define and regulate AR 15-6 investigations, but it also contains the rules for Army Boards of Inquiry (Officer) and Separation Boards (Enlisted).

The AR 15-6 update makes the following important changes:

Before an AR 15-6 investigation is initiated, a Commander must make a determined that "sufficient credible information exists to warrant further fact-finding or evidence-gathering." Credible information is defined as "Evidence attributable or corroborated information, in any form, disclosed to or obtained by an appointing authority or investigative authority that considering the original source, the nature of the information, and the totality of the circumstances–is sufficient to raise a question of fact that would cause a reasonable responsible appointing authority or investigative authority under similar circumstances to inquire further."
Anyone who is found to have "knowingly submitted a false allegation, and the false allegation is what initially triggered an inquiry or investigation, may be subject to adverse administrative or punitive action. Personnel who repeatedly submit or make frivolous allegations....to the appointing authorities, which trigger investigations, may be subject to adverse or administrative or punitive action." Frivolous allegations are defined as: " An allegation that a reasonable person knows has no merit, particularly allegations brought for an unreasonable purpose such as harassment."
Requires that "specially trained IOs" be appointed to investigate allegations of formal sexually harassment complaints.
Requiring IOs to be someone from outside of the immediate chain of command of the complainant and the subject for investigations "stemming from formal sexual harassment complaints."
Defines a "subject" of an investigation as follows: " A “subject” is a person about whom some credible evidence exists to believe that the person is involved in an incident or event under investigation in such a way that disciplinary or administrative action may follow, the person’s rights or privileges may be adversely affected, or the person’s reputation or professional standing may be jeopardized."
Explicitly states that the AAIP database does not apply to Warrant Officers.
Explicitly states that all Officers, 2LT and above, have the right to review proposed adverse findings, the right to review the evidence those proposed findings are based on, and submit an AR 15-6 investigation rebuttal, before any findings become final.

The June 2025 AR 15-6 update, in Attorney Barry's opinion, is unlikely to result in any significant changes. The "credibility assessment" does have the potential for more Command involvement when clear baseless allegations are made. However, in order for this to result in actual change, Commanders must be willing to take a risk and make a finding that an allegation is not credible. Given the current climate in the Army, this is unlikely, as Commanders these days are very risk averse. That said, with some culture change, this provision could lead to less investigations.

Additionally, the 15-6 update does explicitly authorize punishment for those who file false complaints. That said, Article 107 of the UCMJ, implemented in 1950, authorizes up to 5-years in jail for anyone making a false official statement, which would include a false allegation. The problem in the Army is not a lack of available punishment for those who lie - the problem is the lack of willingness by the chain of command to punish Soldiers who make false allegations. Again, with a culture change, Article 107 of the UCMJ, and the AR 15-6 update, could be effective to punish those who have made false allegations and prevent other false reports.

The "specially trained" IOs named in the 15-6 update are concerning to Attorney Barry. Likely, these IOs will be trained with a confirmation bias against those who are accused of SHARP allegations.

While the June 2025 AR 15-6 update appears to be intended to help those accused of misconduct, Attorney Barry is skeptical that any meaningful change will result.

Any Soldier facing an AR 15-6 investigation should immediately recognize that his/her career is in jeopardy. While Trial Defense Services (TDS) is available to assist, they are often inexperienced and over-worked. They are also typically unwilling to provide the time and attention needed for a successful Defense during an AR 15-6 investigation. Soldiers can retain Civilian Counsel, which allows them to choose an experienced military lawyer with great former client reviews.

This Article was written by Attorney Matthew Barry. Attorney Barry is highly rated by former clients and has a proven track record of success. He has also dealt extensively with AR 15-6 investigations in Army, as well as the adverse actions that can result.

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.