Army Directive 2026-11

June 20, 2026

Army Directive 2026-11, available for download at this link, was published on 10 June 2026. It has far reaching consequences for Officer promotions and Senior Enlisted assignments.

To begin, it allows Officers to decline a Promotion Review Board (PRB) or Special Selection Review Board (SSRB), which was not an option previously. Now, instead of forcing an Officer to wait up to 18 months for a promotion that he/she may not want, Army Directive 2026-11 allows an Officer to decline these reviews. If this option is selected, it will be considered a non-selection for promotion, which can have consequences.

More importantly, Army Directive 2026-11 established a new definition of "adverse information" as it relates to promotion boards for Officers and Senior Enlisted assignment screenings. Adverse information now must be:

substantiated by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not); law enforcement reports (CID or MPI) based solely on probable cause do not qualify unless the misconduct is subsequently substantiated using a preponderance of the evidence standard; and,
the substantiated information must be less than 10 years old unless it reflects a documented pattern of serious misconduct or is a special-interest item designated by the Department, the White House, or the Senate of the Armed Services Committee

Furthermore, information may not be considered adverse if there is a documented adjudication of the same matter, offense, or conduct that is favorable to the Soldier/Officer for promotion or where a board of inquiry/separation board that determines that the underlying misconduct is not substantiated or supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Basically, this means that if a Board of Inquiry (BOI) or Separation Board unsubstantiates an allegation, this allegation cannot be considered "adverse" for any future promotion boards, PRBs, SSRBs, or Special Selection Boards (SSBs).

Army Directive 2026-11, therefore, makes it easier for certain Officers previously accused of misconduct to be selected for promotion and Senior Enlisted Previously accused of misconduct to be selected for senior assignments. If a CID/MPI investigation resulted in probable cause, but did not result in any adverse action, then said investigation should not prevent officer promotion/senior enlisted assignment. Furthermore, if allegations are unsubstantiated at a BOI/Separation Board, then it cannot be considered "adverse" by any subsequent promotion board/suitability screening for Senior Enlisted NCOs.

Any Servicemember facing a PRB/SSRB/SRB/Enlisted suitability screening for allegations that were unsubstantiated by a BOI/Separation Board or never substantiated beyond probable cause after a CID/MPI investigation, should immediately consult an experienced Military Lawyer. Army Directive 2026-11 provides these individuals with additional rights that should be invoked to ensure careers are not ended prematurely. Furthermore, this directive makes proper legal representation during a CID investigation, MPI investigation, BOI, and/or Separation Board even more important.

Furthermore, any Officer/Soldier/Veteran who believes they were denied a promotion or position based on allegations covered by Army Directive 2026-11 should also conduct an experienced Military Lawyer. Through the use of a DD Form 149, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records can be petitioned for retroactive promotions, with back-pay.

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 extensive experience with all types of Military Adverse Actions, including those affected by Army Directive 2026-11.

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