Most service members first hear about AR 15-6 when they are already inside one. A commander has appointed an investigating officer. Witnesses are being contacted. Someone in the chain of command has mentioned your name. By the time you realize what is happening, the investigation is already collecting the evidence that will shape what comes next.
That gap between “this is just administrative” and “this is affecting my career” is where most of the damage occurs. AR 15-6 investigations operate under Army Regulation 15-6, the Army’s framework for preliminary inquiries, administrative investigations, and boards of officers. They are not criminal proceedings. They do not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. They use a lower standard, preponderance of the evidence, which means the investigating officer only needs to find that misconduct more likely occurred than not.
That distinction matters more than most service members realize.
What AR 15-6 Investigations Cover
AR 15-6 is the Army’s primary fact-finding tool. Commanders use it when they need an official record of what happened, who was involved, and what should be done about it. The regulation covers three types of proceedings. Preliminary inquiries, administrative investigations, and boards of officers each serve a different function at a different level of formality.
Preliminary inquiries are the lightest form. A commander can conduct one personally or appoint an inquiry officer, sometimes verbally. The purpose is to assess whether a situation warrants a fuller investigation. No formal procedural requirements apply. No respondents are designated.
Administrative investigations are the most common form of AR 15-6 proceeding. A single investigating officer, appointed in writing, gathers evidence, interviews witnesses, and produces a report with findings and recommendations. These are what most soldiers mean when they say “15-6.”
Boards of officers are the most formal. They involve one or more investigating officers using formal hearing procedures, and they can designate respondents who receive due process rights including the right to counsel, the right to call witnesses, and the right to cross-examine.
The triggers vary widely. Misconduct allegations, toxic leadership complaints, SHARP and EO violations, property loss, training accidents, hazing, fraternization, misuse of government resources, and command climate issues can all generate an AR 15-6 investigation. Some investigations are required by other regulations. Others are discretionary. The commander decides.
The June 2025 Revision
The Army published a revised AR 15-6 on June 22, 2025, superseding the April 2016 version. The revision was driven by the Secretary of Defense’s April 23, 2025 memorandum on restoring good order and discipline through balanced accountability. Several changes affect how investigations are initiated and how findings are handled.
Credibility assessment before investigation. Under paragraph 1-8b of the revised regulation, commanders must now consult with their servicing legal advisor and assess whether “sufficient credible information exists to warrant further fact-finding or evidence-gathering” before appointing an investigation. The regulation defines credible information as “attributable or corroborated information, in any form” that, considering the source, nature, and totality of circumstances, would cause a reasonable appointing authority to inquire further. Critically, information can be credible even if not initially supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
This credibility assessment is not classified as one of the three formal investigative procedures. Soldiers will not be flagged during a credibility assessment. The flag attaches only after the commander determines credible information exists and initiates a formal proceeding.
Accountability for false allegations. Paragraph 1-10 of the revised regulation adds explicit guidance on knowingly false and repeated frivolous allegations. Frivolous allegations are defined as those “that a reasonable person knows has no merit” and were made for “an unreasonable purpose.” Commanders now have explicit regulatory authority to pursue punitive or administrative action against soldiers who file false reports. False official statements were already punishable under Article 107, UCMJ, which carries up to five years’ confinement, but the revised AR 15-6 formalizes the connection between the administrative investigation framework and accountability for false complaints.
Specially trained investigating officers. The revision prescribes policy for specially trained IOs in certain categories of investigations, a change that introduces both potential expertise and potential confirmation bias depending on the training received.
Expanded rebuttal rights. The revision explicitly states that all officers from second lieutenant and above have the right to review proposed adverse findings, review the evidence supporting those findings, and submit a rebuttal before findings become final.
AAIP clarification. The revision confirms that the Army Adverse Information Program database does not apply to warrant officers and specifies that approved adverse findings for officers O-1 and above are entered into the AAIP database and will appear in the officer’s AMHRR during future promotion reviews.
How an AR 15-6 Investigation Actually Works
The process begins with an appointment memorandum. The appointing authority, usually a commander with special or general court-martial convening authority, or an SPCMCA/GCMCA for administrative purposes, issues a written memorandum naming the investigating officer, defining the scope of inquiry, and specifying what findings and recommendations are required.
The IO must be a commissioned officer, warrant officer, or DA civilian at GS-13 or above. The IO must also outrank any subject of the investigation. Once appointed, the IO typically meets with a legal advisor to develop an investigative plan.
From there, the IO collects evidence. Documents, emails, text messages, duty rosters, counseling statements, photographs, and any other relevant materials. The IO interviews witnesses and may request written statements. For informal investigations (the most common type), AR 15-6 does not require sworn statements, though the appointing authority or another applicable regulation may require them.
Investigating officers do not have subpoena authority. They cannot compel civilian witnesses to appear, and their authority to interview civilian employees may be limited. Military witnesses, however, are generally expected to cooperate.
After evidence collection, the IO evaluates credibility, weighs the evidence, and makes findings. The standard is preponderance of the evidence, meaning the greater weight of evidence supports a particular conclusion as being more credible and probable than any other conclusion. The IO then writes recommendations and submits the report to the appointing authority.
The appointing authority reviews the report, may direct additional investigation, and ultimately approves, disapproves, or modifies the findings. A legal review examines the report for procedural compliance and legal sufficiency.
The Standard of Proof and Why It Matters
Criminal proceedings under the UCMJ require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. AR 15-6 investigations require only preponderance of the evidence, a substantially lower threshold.
In practice, this means the IO does not need to eliminate all alternative explanations. The IO needs to determine that one version of events is more likely true than not. A 51% likelihood is technically sufficient.
This lower standard has a practical consequence that many service members do not anticipate. Conduct that would never result in criminal charges, because the evidence is too thin, too circumstantial, or too dependent on competing witness accounts, can still generate a substantiated adverse finding in an AR 15-6 investigation. That adverse finding can then serve as the basis for a GOMOR, relief for cause, a referral evaluation report, or administrative separation proceedings.
The investigation itself is not punishment. The findings are the foundation for everything that follows.
What Happens After the Investigation
The appointing authority decides what action to take based on the approved findings. The range of potential outcomes includes no action, counseling or administrative corrective measures, a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, referral to separation proceedings, or referral of the matter for criminal investigation and potential court-martial.
For officers O-1 and above, substantiated adverse findings are entered into the AAIP database and retained for a minimum of ten years. These entries appear during promotion reviews. A single adverse finding from a 15-6 investigation, even one that never resulted in formal punishment, can appear before a promotion board years later and effectively end an officer’s career progression.
For NCOs and enlisted soldiers, adverse findings can trigger separation proceedings, block reenlistment, and damage evaluation reports. The effects may be less formally tracked than the AAIP system, but they are no less real.
Rights During an AR 15-6 Investigation
The rights available to a service member during an AR 15-6 investigation depend on the type of proceeding and the individual’s role in it.
Subjects in informal investigations (the most common scenario) do not have the right to counsel during the investigation itself, do not have the right to call or cross-examine witnesses, and do not have the right to be present during witness interviews. If the IO’s questions could lead to self-incrimination, Article 31(b), UCMJ, requires a rights advisement, but only for subjects suspected of offenses under the UCMJ.
Respondents in formal board proceedings receive substantially greater protections. These include notice of the proceedings, the right to be present, the right to counsel (military counsel at no cost, civilian counsel at personal expense, or both), the right to call and cross-examine witnesses, and the right to present evidence.
All service members retain Fifth Amendment protections against compelled self-incrimination. Regardless of the proceeding type, no one can be forced to provide a statement that incriminates themselves.
Before adverse findings are finalized, the subject or affected soldier has the right to review the findings, review the supporting evidence, and submit a written rebuttal. This rebuttal opportunity, especially for officers under the June 2025 revision, is one of the most important procedural protections in the process.
The critical point is that in an informal investigation, your most significant rights come after the investigation is complete and adverse findings are proposed. By then, the IO has already formed conclusions based on the evidence collected. This is why the pre-statement phase, before you have said anything, matters so much. There is no way to un-say a statement once it is part of the investigative record.
Where Service Members Go Wrong
The most common error is treating a 15-6 investigation as a conversation rather than a proceeding. An IO who approaches casually, saying “I just need your side of things” or “this will help clear everything up,” is still collecting evidence for an official report. Every word in that exchange can appear in the findings.
The second most common error is confusing roles. A witness can become a subject during the course of an investigation based on information that emerges, including information from the witness’s own statement. A service member who cooperates as a witness, believing they are helping, may discover that their own words have made them the focus of an adverse finding.
The third error is waiting too long to respond. The rebuttal window is limited. Once findings are approved and entered into the AAIP or used as the basis for adverse action, the path to correction narrows significantly. Boards for Correction of Military Records exist, but they are neither fast nor guaranteed.
How a Defense Attorney Fits Into the Process
AR 15-6 does not automatically entitle subjects in informal investigations to appointed military counsel. Trial Defense Service may assist, but TDS resources are limited, and many 15-6 subjects do not receive representation until formal adverse action is proposed.
Civilian defense counsel can engage at any point in the process. Early involvement allows the attorney to advise on whether and how to respond to the IO’s request for a statement, identify procedural deficiencies in the investigation, prepare the rebuttal before the window closes, and challenge bias or scope overreach by the IO.
An attorney who understands how 15-6 investigations function, not just in regulation but in practice, can identify where the IO’s evidence is weakest, which witness statements conflict, and whether the findings are actually supported by the preponderance standard the regulation requires.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created by reading this content. If you are facing an AR 15-6 investigation or any military justice matter, consult a qualified military defense attorney.