Can a military attorney challenge command-directed investigations?

When a commander needs facts, the tool is often an administrative investigation, in the Army an AR 15-6 inquiry. These investigations can shape careers, so a service member who becomes a subject needs to understand that they are not powerless. The path to challenging the process runs through knowing what kind of investigation it is and what rights attach to it.

Two formats, very different rights

An AR 15-6 investigation comes in two forms, and the difference matters enormously:

  • Informal. A single investigating officer gathers facts. There is usually no formally designated “respondent” with the full slate of hearing rights.
  • Formal (a board of officers). Used when a person is formally designated as a respondent. Here the respondent gains real procedural rights: notice, the right to be represented by counsel, and the right to be present, present evidence, call witnesses, and cross-examine witnesses against them.

The first question in any challenge is therefore which format applies, because the formal track carries the participation rights that make a meaningful defense possible.

It is administrative, not a court

A crucial point that shapes the whole challenge: an AR 15-6 investigation is administrative, not judicial. It does not follow the formal rules of evidence used in a court-martial, and its purpose is fact-finding to inform a command decision, not to adjudicate guilt. That changes how a subject engages with it, the leverage is in the facts, the record, and the procedural rights, not in courtroom evidentiary objections.

Where the challenge happens

Because the investigation feeds a command decision, much of the challenge is about the record and the outcome:

  • Exercising the rights that attach (especially in a formal board), being represented, presenting evidence, and confronting witnesses.
  • The approval authority’s review. The findings and recommendations go to an approval authority who can approve, disapprove, or modify them. That review is a key point of influence, because flawed findings can be contested before they harden into action.
  • Building the factual record so that the decision-maker sees the subject’s side, since the inquiry’s whole function is to establish facts.

A member named as a respondent in a formal investigation gains rights an informal inquiry does not carry, to notice, counsel, and the chance to call and cross-examine witnesses, which the attorney puts to use.

A military attorney helps a subject understand the format, exercise the available rights, and press the factual and procedural case before the approval authority. The bottom line is that challenging a command-directed investigation is not about courtroom theatrics; it is about identifying whether the inquiry is informal or formal, using the rights that come with it, and shaping the factual record before it reaches the official who can approve, modify, or reject the findings.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between an informal and formal AR 15-6 investigation?
An informal investigation typically uses a single investigating officer with no designated respondent, while a formal board designates a respondent who has rights to notice, counsel, presenting evidence, and cross-examining witnesses.

Does an AR 15-6 investigation follow court rules of evidence?
No. It is administrative, not judicial, and does not apply the formal rules of evidence used in a court-martial.

Can the findings of an investigation be changed?
Yes. The findings and recommendations go to an approval authority who can approve, disapprove, or modify them.

This article is general information about administrative investigations. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Procedures vary by service and regulation and can change. A service member who is the subject of an investigation should consult a military attorney promptly.

Sources

…

Can a military attorney pursue reparations for wrongful drone targeting?

This question runs into a hard legal reality that has to be stated honestly: there is generally no entitlement-based “reparations” for harm caused by combat operations. What exists instead is a discretionary system of sympathy payments that developed precisely because the ordinary claims law does not cover combat. Understanding that gap, and how it is filled, is the accurate answer.

The gap: the combat exclusion

The United States compensates foreign nationals for some harm through the Foreign Claims Act, which covers death, injury, or property damage caused by the noncombat activities of U.S. forces overseas. But the act contains a decisive limit: a claim arising from combat of the armed forces may not be considered or paid under it. This is the combat exclusion.

The practical consequence is blunt. Harm caused during combat operations, including strikes, generally falls outside the Foreign Claims Act, so there is usually no claims-based entitlement to compensation for it. That is the gap any honest discussion has to acknowledge.

What fills the gap: condolence and ex gratia payments

Because the combat exclusion leaves combat harm uncompensated by the ordinary claims system, the Defense Department uses discretionary mechanisms:

  • Condolence (or solatia) payments, cash provided as an expression of sympathy for death, injury, or property damage caused by U.S. or coalition forces, including during combat.
  • Ex gratia payments, which local commanders may provide at their discretion for damage, injury, or death incident to combat operations, within applicable regulations.

The critical point is what these are not: they are not an admission of legal liability and not a legal entitlement. They are sympathy payments, authorized as an ad hoc response to the combat exclusion, and whether one is made rests on the command’s discretion.

What that means for an attorney

So “pursuing reparations for wrongful drone targeting” is, in legal terms, usually a matter of seeking a discretionary condolence or ex gratia payment, not enforcing a right to compensation. A military attorney’s honest role is to explain this framework, identify whether a condolence or ex gratia mechanism is available in the relevant operation, and avoid promising an entitlement that the law does not provide.

Consider a family harmed by a mistaken strike: the attorney explains that there is no entitlement to compensation, but discretionary condolence or ex gratia payments may be authorized, without admitting legal liability.

The throughline is candor: combat harm sits outside the entitlement-based claims system because of the combat exclusion, and the available relief is discretionary sympathy payments rather than reparations. Stating that accurately is itself the service, because it sets realistic expectations about what the law does and does not offer.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is there a legal right to compensation for combat-related civilian harm?
Generally no. The Foreign Claims Act excludes claims arising from combat, so combat harm is usually not compensable as an entitlement under that act.

What are condolence or ex gratia payments?
Discretionary cash payments offered as an expression of sympathy for death, injury, or damage incident to combat, not an admission of legal liability.

Who decides whether such a payment is made?
Local commanders may authorize ex gratia or condolence payments at their discretion, within applicable regulations.

This article is general information about civilian-harm payments. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. These programs are discretionary and the rules can change. This article describes the framework in general terms only.

Sources

…

What legal standards guide a military attorney in cross-examination?

Cross-examination feels like the freest part of a trial, but it is governed by clear standards that say what counsel may ask, how far they may go, and on what basis. Effective cross is not a license to ask anything; it is pointed questioning that stays inside defined rules. Four standards shape every cross-examination in a court-martial.

The foundation: the right to confront

Cross-examination exists because of a constitutional right. The Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause guarantees that the accused may be confronted with the witnesses against him, and that right includes the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses, including on matters of bias and credibility. So cross is not a courtesy; it is a protected right at the core of a fair trial, which is why courts guard it.

The scope: tied to direct and to credibility

The right is not unlimited in subject matter. Under Military Rule of Evidence 611, cross-examination should generally be limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and to matters affecting the witness’s credibility. The military judge controls the mode and order of questioning and may, in discretion, allow inquiry into additional matters. So the natural scope is what the witness testified to, plus their believability.

The limit: credibility is not a free pass

Counsel cannot open any topic merely by calling it “credibility.” There must be a direct nexus to the case rooted in the record. Practically, the proposed line of questioning must be logically relevant (it must actually tend to prove something at issue) and survive the balancing of probative value against unfair prejudice or confusion. Where cross genuinely goes to credibility, judges afford wide latitude, but the relevance gate still applies.

The basis: good faith required

Finally, a cross-examiner cannot insinuate facts they have no reason to believe. Questioning about a witness’s specific conduct bearing on truthfulness requires a good-faith basis, the lawyer must have an actual, reasonable basis for the question rather than throwing out damaging suggestions hoping something sticks.

Consider defense counsel who wants to question an accuser about an unrelated grievance: the judge applies the relevance limits, since the confrontation right reaches bias and credibility but not any topic merely labeled as such.

The bottom line is that cross-examination is a disciplined right, not a free-for-all. It is grounded in the Confrontation Clause, bounded in scope by Military Rule of Evidence 611, gated by relevance even on credibility, and anchored by a good-faith basis for each line of attack, which together make cross both powerful and legitimate.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is cross-examination a constitutional right?
Yes. The Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause gives the accused the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, including on bias and credibility.

What can be asked on cross-examination?
Generally matters within the subject of the direct examination and matters affecting the witness’s credibility, with the military judge controlling the scope and able to permit additional inquiry.

Can counsel ask about anything by calling it credibility?
No. There must be a direct, record-based nexus, and the questioning must be relevant and survive a balancing of its value against unfair prejudice, with a good-faith basis for the question.

This article is general information about cross-examination standards. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Application is fact-specific and the law can change. Anyone facing a court-martial should consult qualified defense counsel.

Sources

…

How does a military attorney defend cases of fraternization?

Fraternization is one of the more subjective offenses in military law, which is both its danger and its defensive opening. It is not enough that two people of different rank had a relationship; the government must prove a specific set of elements, and two of them are where most of the defense work happens. Understanding the elements is the foundation of any defense.

What fraternization is

Fraternization, charged under Article 134 of the UCMJ, is generally an unduly familiar personal relationship between an officer and an enlisted member that disregards the difference in rank. The prohibited conduct can be romantic, sexual, business, social, or financial, the common thread is a relationship that crosses rank boundaries in a way the military treats as harmful to authority.

The elements the government must prove

To convict, the prosecution must establish each element, typically:

  • The accused was a commissioned or warrant officer.
  • The accused fraternized with an enlisted member on terms of military equality.
  • The accused knew the person was an enlisted member.
  • The conduct violated the custom of the accused’s service that officers do not fraternize on terms of military equality.
  • The terminal element, the conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline or service-discrediting.

Each element is a place the defense can contest, but two stand out.

The two pressure points

The defense concentrates where the government’s proof is hardest:

  • Violation of custom. Fraternization depends on a recognized service custom that the relationship violated. Customs vary and evolve, so whether a given relationship actually crossed an established custom is genuinely contestable.
  • The terminal element. The conduct must be shown to have been prejudicial to good order and discipline or service-discrediting. A relationship that caused no actual harm to discipline or reputation may fail this element.

A further point: consent is not a complete defense, both parties agreeing does not legalize a prohibited relationship, though context can matter in how the case is viewed. Because the offense is applied inconsistently, scrutinizing whether the specific facts truly meet custom and the terminal element is central.

Picture an officer and an enlisted member in a relationship the command calls improper: the defense tests whether a genuine service custom was violated and whether the conduct actually harmed good order, the two hardest elements to prove.

The core point is that fraternization is defended at the elements, not in the abstract. The government must prove a custom-violating, unduly familiar officer-enlisted relationship that harmed discipline or the service’s reputation, and the defense lives in testing the custom and terminal elements, where subjective, inconsistently enforced standards leave the most room to contest.

Frequently Asked Questions

What must the government prove in a fraternization case?
Generally that an officer fraternized with an enlisted member on terms of military equality, knew their status, violated the service’s custom against it, and that the conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline or service-discrediting.

Is consent a defense to fraternization?
No, consent is not a complete defense, because both parties agreeing does not make a prohibited relationship lawful, though context can affect how the case is assessed.

Where is a fraternization case most vulnerable?
Often on whether a recognized service custom was actually violated and whether the conduct genuinely prejudiced good order and discipline or discredited the service.

This article is general information about fraternization under the UCMJ. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Application is fact-specific and customs and policies vary by service and can change. Anyone facing such an allegation should consult a qualified military defense attorney.

Sources

…

Can a military attorney assist in medical evaluation board proceedings?

Yes. When a medical condition may affect a service member’s ability to keep serving, the case moves through the military’s Disability Evaluation System, a sequence of boards that decides whether the member stays, separates, or retires. An attorney’s help is valuable because each board has its own question and its own moment to influence the outcome. Knowing the sequence is the foundation.

Two boards, one system

The process runs through two linked boards, and they ask different things:

  • The Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). The MEB documents the member’s medical conditions and assesses whether they meet the military’s medical retention standards. It is the fact-gathering, standards-checking stage that frames everything after it.
  • The Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). The PEB takes the MEB’s findings and makes the key call: is the member fit or unfit to perform their duties, and for those found unfit due to a duty-related condition, what benefits follow.

So the MEB establishes the medical picture against retention standards, and the PEB converts that picture into a fitness decision and its consequences.

The PEB’s two stages and the right to contest

The PEB itself has a built-in chance to push back:

  • The Informal PEB (IPEB) conducts an initial review based on the records.
  • The Formal PEB (FPEB) lets a member who disagrees with the IPEB present additional evidence and contest the findings in a more adversarial setting.

That informal-then-formal structure is exactly where representation pays off, because the FPEB is the member’s opportunity to challenge an unfavorable informal result with evidence and argument.

What is at stake, and where the attorney fits

The outcomes are significant: a member may be returned to duty, medically separated, or medically retired, with separation and retirement carrying very different benefit consequences. Because of that, an attorney or representative helps in concrete ways, organizing the medical evidence, ensuring conditions are properly captured against retention standards, and advocating at the formal board, whether the member’s goal is to remain in service or to secure an accurate finding and rating.

Suppose a member disputes an informal board’s finding that a condition makes them unfit: the attorney helps present evidence at the formal board to contest the finding and shape the outcome.

What ties it together is that these proceedings are a navigable, two-board process with a real built-in appeal. The MEB measures the condition against retention standards, the PEB decides fitness and benefits, and the formal PEB stage gives the member a genuine chance to be heard, which is precisely where informed assistance makes the difference.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between the MEB and the PEB?
The Medical Evaluation Board documents conditions and checks them against medical retention standards, while the Physical Evaluation Board decides whether the member is fit or unfit for duty and what benefits follow.

Can I contest an unfavorable finding?
Yes. The Informal PEB reviews the records first, and if you disagree, the Formal PEB lets you present additional evidence and contest the findings.

What outcomes are possible?
A member may be returned to duty, medically separated, or medically retired, and separation versus retirement carry significantly different benefits.

This article is general information about the military Disability Evaluation System. It is not legal advice or medical advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Procedures vary by service and can change, and outcomes are fact-specific. Service members in this process should consult a qualified representative.

Sources

…
Page 19 of 48
1 … 17 18 19 20 21 … 48