Command Investigations

Three Categories of Investigation

JAGMAN distinguishes three categories of command investigation. The right tool depends on the seriousness and the purpose.

Pick the right tool at appointment. Switching mid-investigation is procedurally messy.

Preliminary Inquiry

A PI is the quickest investigative tool. The Investigating Officer (IO) does limited fact-finding and reports back via internal memorandum.

When to use a PI

• Allegation of minor misconduct needing verification before deciding on NJP
• Complaint of unfair treatment requiring quick fact-check
• Inquiry into a low-consequence event (minor property damage, brief delay in operations)
• Initial sorting before deciding whether a full Command Investigation is warranted

What a PI is not

• A substitute for a Command Investigation when the matter is serious
• An OSTC investigation (covered offenses do not get PIs)
• A safety investigation (those run under a different framework)

CO discipline on a PI

• Appoint a competent IO in writing
• Set a tight timeline (typically 5 to 10 working days)
• Define the scope narrowly
• Read the result
• Decide on action or upgrade to a CI

Command Investigation

The Command Investigation is the standard JAGMAN tool. JAGINST 5800.7G Chapter 2 governs.

When to use a CI

• Death or serious injury of a Marine in unit
• Significant property damage or loss
• Allegation of misconduct requiring documented findings
• Personnel grievances requiring formal resolution
• Incidents with command climate implications
• Complaints under Article 138 UCMJ
• Inspection findings requiring follow-up investigation
• Events likely to result in adverse personnel action

Mandatory CI triggers

JAGMAN identifies specific incidents mandating a CI:

• Death or injury of a person involving line-of-duty determination
• Loss of or significant damage to government property above threshold values
• Drowning of a Marine
• Specific operational incidents per local SOP

The Investigating Officer

The IO is appointed in writing. The IO must:

• Be senior to the senior subject of the investigation where practicable
• Be impartial (no prior involvement in the matter)
• Not be in the chain of command of the subject where the investigation would affect them
• Have time to conduct the investigation properly

IO appointment letter content

The IO returns the appointment letter signed acknowledging receipt.

Conducting the investigation

The IO:

1. Reviews the appointment letter and JAGMAN guidance
2. Identifies all relevant witnesses and documents
3. Interviews witnesses, taking sworn statements where appropriate
4. Collects documentary and physical evidence
5. Drafts findings of fact, opinions, and recommendations
6. Coordinates with SJA on legal sufficiency
7. Submits draft report to the convening officer (CO)
8. Revises as directed
9. Submits final report

Rights advisement

When a Marine is suspected of misconduct, the IO advises rights per Article 31(b) UCMJ before questioning. Rights advisement is on a specific form. Skipping it makes statements inadmissible and the investigation procedurally defective.

Findings, opinions, and recommendations

The CI report has three distinct sections:

The CO acts on opinions and recommendations. Findings are the factual record.

Litigation Report Investigation

The LRI is the most specialized JAGMAN investigation type. Used when civil litigation, significant claims, or congressional inquiry is anticipated.

LRI specifics

• Conducted under attorney-client privilege framework
• IO works closely with SJA from appointment
• Report is typically privileged work product
• Distribution is restricted
• Procedural rules differ from standard CI

When to use

• Aircraft mishap with potential civil litigation
• Significant equipment loss with insurance or contract implications
• Allegations against the unit by external parties
• Congressional inquiries requiring formal documented response
• Tort claims by service members or family

LRIs require deeper SJA involvement at appointment.

CO Action on Investigation Findings

After the report is final, the CO decides on action.

CO action is documented in an endorsement to the investigation report. The endorsement states the action taken and the rationale.

OSTC Overlap on Investigations

When a Command Investigation surfaces a covered offense allegation:

1. Pause the CI on the covered-offense aspect
2. Notify SJA and the regional OSTC
3. Coordinate the CI scope with OSTC
4. The CI continues on non-covered-offense aspects under OSTC and SJA guidance
5. Findings on the covered offense are handed to OSTC, not used for unit disposition

A CI crossing into OSTC territory without coordination risks tainting the eventual prosecution.

Privacy and Records Management

Investigation reports contain personal information protected by the Privacy Act. JAGINST 5800.7G specifies:

• Distribution limits on the report
• Redaction requirements for FOIA responses
• Retention period (typically 5 years for CIs, longer for LRIs)
• Marking requirements (For Official Use Only, or higher as warranted)
• Storage requirements (locked cabinet or designated electronic system)

A CI report stored in an accessible drive shared widely violates Privacy Act protections.

Common Failures

1. Wrong investigation tool. PI when CI is warranted. Investigation found insufficient on review.
2. IO without rights advisement. Statements inadmissible. Investigation tainted.
3. IO in chain of command of the subject. Procedural conflict. Findings discounted.
4. No SJA coordination. Legal sufficiency questioned at review.
5. Investigation report not routed. Findings stay at unit. Lost at later separation processing or court-martial.
6. Findings written as opinion. Conflation of fact and conclusion. Report defective.
7. OSTC covered offense surfaced and CI continued without coordination. MARADMIN 633/24 risk.
8. Privacy Act violations on distribution. Personal information leak. Marine grievance grounds.

Decision Framework Before Appointing

Before appointing an IO:

1. What category of investigation is appropriate?
2. Who is impartial and competent to serve as IO?
3. What is the appointment letter scope?
4. What is the timeline?
5. Has SJA been consulted at appointment?
6. Is there an OSTC overlap requiring special handling?
7. What records management considerations apply?

A "no" or "unclear" on any of these is a sign to take more time before appointing.

Related Pages

• Discipline and Records Overview (this topic, order 1)
• NJP Routing and Commander Authority (this topic, order 2)
• Page 11 Entries (this topic, order 3)
• Convening Authority and Courts-Martial (this topic, order 4)
• UPB and SRB Records Management (this topic, order 6)
• OSTC Covered Offenses (Turnover topic) - overlap rules
• Covered Offense Incident Response (Incident Playbooks topic)