1. References.
See references in enclosure 1.
2. Purpose.
This directive updates Army regulatory requirements for inspector general (IG) complaint processing, collateral personnel actions, and associated training requirements, consistent with Secretary of War guidance in reference 1c.
3. Applicability.
This directive applies to the Regular Army, U.S. Army National Guard/Army National Guard of the United States, and U.S. Army Reserve.
4. Policy.
The provisions of this directive are applicable to IG complaints submitted 90 days after the date of this directive.
This policy will be implemented in accordance with applicable law and regulation, and consistent with all applicable individual due process protections.
Proponents of the Army regulations (ARs) identified in paragraph 6 of this directive retain authority to approve exceptions to any requirement of this directive.
This policy does not create any entitlement, right, cause of action, or defense at law or in equity, in favor of any person or entity.
For the definitions of terms used in this directive, see enclosure 2.
a.
The following provisions apply to the processing of IG complaints, IG-retained investigations, and command administrative investigations and preliminary inquiries conducted pursuant to an IG referral.
These provisions are not applicable to whistleblower reprisal and restriction investigations.
Investigations conducted pursuant to other policies (such as AR 600–52, on the Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention Program) will comply with procedures mandated in the applicable policies.
(1)
IGs must first determine whether the complaint they have received contains alleged misconduct.
Initial contact with a complainant may present IGs with issues and allegations that require varied responses, which may include a clarification interview, assistance, referral, or teach and train.
Once an IG has sufficient information to determine an IG complaint alleging misconduct, the IG will conduct a credibility assessment to determine next steps.
(2)
IGs will conduct a credibility assessment of all complaints with allegations of misconduct within 7 duty days.
This period commences when the office of inquiry receives sufficient information to determine the complaint contains alleged misconduct.
This period ends when the office of inquiry determines the complaint should be closed pursuant to the guidance in this directive as a non-credible misconduct complaint; pursuant to AR 20–1, refers the complaint to the appropriate command for further action; or retains the complaint for further IG action.
IGs will conduct the assessment consistent with the requirements of the IG preliminary analysis in AR 20–1, paragraph 7–1b(2), and The Assistance and Investigations Guide (reference 1p).
Department of Defense Inspector General (DoDIG) Hotline action referrals are exempt from the IG credibility assessment described in this paragraph.
(a)
“Credible misconduct complaints” are complaints with a matter of alleged misconduct supported by credible evidence or information (as defined in enclosure 2 of this directive) that warrants initial investigative work or additional investigation, and not otherwise deemed inappropriate for IG action by paragraph 4a(2)(b) of this directive or AR 20–1.
IGs must determine that a complaint is supported by credible evidence and warrants investigation before referring it outside the Army IG system.
(b)
“Non-credible misconduct complaints” include:
(1) Those not supported by credible evidence/information;
(2) Those filed more than 1 year after the alleged event that forms the basis of the complaint, unless new compelling evidence is presented; and
(3) Repeat/duplicate submissions with no new facts presented.
IGs must inform complainants that their complaint did not meet the definition of credible and provide the complainant with guidance, assistance, or referral to a more appropriate venue or process for action, as warranted.
The existence of new compelling evidence sufficient to investigate a complaint filed more than 1 year after the alleged event will be determined by the appropriate directing authority consistent with the requirements of AR 20–1, paragraph 6–1e, and may include, but is not limited to, events that occurred more than 1 year before complaint filing but whose existence was not learned of until a later date.
Repeat duplicate submissions with no new facts presented will be processed in accordance with AR 20–1, paragraph 6–2b.
(3)
If a credible misconduct complaint is referred to the command, IGs have no authority to direct the command process.
Commanders retain the authority to conduct their own credibility assessment of the allegation (except in DoDIG Hotline action referral cases) and determine a course of action pursuant to AR 15–6, paragraph 1–8.
Commands must complete any preliminary inquiries/administrative investigations initiated pursuant to an IG command referral within 30 duty days.
This period begins with the appointment of an investigating officer (IO) and ends at the approval of the investigation.
Extensions to the time limit for completion of the command preliminary inquiry/administrative investigation for good cause or to safeguard procedural due process must be approved by the appropriate authority in accordance with AR 15–6, chapter 2.
This may include, but is not limited to, delays due to operational requirements (such as deployment or extended field exercises); delays requested by the subject to provide sufficient opportunity to consult with counsel or gather documents or other information to provide as evidence; or to compile and prepare any rebuttal materials permitted by AR 15–6 or other applicable regulation; and delays required to complete the legal sufficiency review and any additional investigative activity required following initial legal sufficiency review.
(4)
All IOs appointed to conduct a preliminary inquiry/administrative investigation pursuant to an IG command referral will receive a brief from their appointed legal advisor prior to initiating investigative work.
In addition to the topics required in AR 15–6, paragraph 2–5b, the brief will include training on the following subjects:
- Correct investigative procedures
- Interviewing techniques
- Evidence handling
- Bias mitigation
- Report writing
The legal advisor will record successful completion of this training, which will be maintained by the supporting legal office as part of the report of investigation.
(5)
During an ongoing command preliminary inquiry/administrative investigation pursuant to an IG command referral, the investigating organization, after consulting the supporting legal advisor, will provide a status update to the subject, the subject’s commander, the complainant(s) (if known to the command), and the referring IG via individual email (that is, not to all recipients as a group) or via an individually addressed letter every 14 duty days.
This update will include only the current investigation status, forthcoming steps, and anticipated completion date.
The update will not include any pre-decisional, deliberative, or substantive information, such as a summary of evidence collected, additional evidence sought, the identity of any witnesses interviewed, or anticipated findings.
(a)
Servicing legal advisors will first review the 14-duty-day updates to ensure they do not affect the integrity of the investigation.
(b)
Case status updates are not binding and serve as procedural updates to keep the complainant, subject, and subject’s commander informed of the status of the command preliminary inquiry/administrative investigation.
The following is a sample update template:
SUBJECT: (Do Not Reply) CASE # Update
Status of the Investigation: Pending initiation / In progress / Pending legal review / Pending approval / Complete
Next Steps: Legal review / Approval of findings / Notification of results
Anticipated Completion Date: Estimated date (Ensure sufficient time for legal review and commander’s review/action on investigation. Notification of results will occur when the investigation’s findings and recommendations are approved.)
(6)
Referring IGs will review the final command product for any allegation(s) they refer to a command to ensure all allegations and any related issues have been addressed thoroughly and completely and will resolve any disagreements regarding the command product in accordance with AR 20–1.
5. Responsibilities.
The Inspector General will—
a.
Update internal policies and information systems and explore the integration of approved artificial intelligence tools and emerging technologies to streamline intake processes, conduct credibility assessments, improve case processing timelines, provide additional capabilities to identify repeat and serial complainants, flag potential false information, and ensure timely classification and routing of complaints while maintaining human oversight to safeguard privacy and due process.
b.
Develop requirements to modernize the IG suite of applications to enable an enterprise-wide view of complaints and investigations, including a common data schema in coordination with the DoDIG Defense Case Activity Tracking System-enterprise Program Management Office to facilitate seamless case transitions.
These efforts will increase efficiency and timeliness in intake processes, complaint tracking, reporting, and overall transparency.
6. Proponent.
The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) has oversight responsibility for this policy.
The Inspector General will incorporate its provisions into AR 20–1, and The Judge Advocate General will incorporate its provisions into AR 15–6, within 2 years of the date of this directive.
7. Duration.
This directive is rescinded on publication of the revised regulations.
DISTRIBUTION:
- Principal Officials of Headquarters, Department of the Army
- Commander
- U.S. Army Western Hemisphere Command
- U.S. Army Forces Command
- U.S. Army Transformation and Training Command
- U.S. Army Materiel Command
- U.S. Army Pacific
- U.S. Army Europe and Africa
- U.S. Army Central
- U.S. Army North
- U.S. Army South
- U.S. Army Special Operations Command
- U.S. Army Transportation Command (CONT)
DISTRIBUTION: (CONT)
- U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Strategic Command
- U.S. Army Cyber Command
- U.S. Army Medical Command
- U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command
- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
- U.S. Army Audit Agency
- U.S. Army Military District of Washington
- U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command
- U.S. Army Human Resources Command
- U.S. Army Corrections Command
- U.S. Army Reserve Command
- Superintendent, U.S. Military Academy
- Director, U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Division
- Director, U.S. Army Civilian Human Resources Agency
- Executive Director, Military Postal Service Agency
- Director, U.S. Army Joint Counter-Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Office
- Superintendent, Arlington National Cemetery
- Director, U.S. Army Acquisition Support Center
CF:
- Commander, Eighth Army
References
a.
Title 10, United States Code, section 615 (Information furnished to selection boards)
b.
Title 10, United States Code, section 14107 (Information furnished by the Secretary concerned to promotion boards)
c.
Secretary of War memorandum (IG Oversight and Reform: Enhancing Timeliness, Transparency, and Due Process in Administrative Investigations), 30 September 2025
d.
Department of Defense (DoD) Instruction 1320.04 (Military Officer Actions Requiring Presidential, Secretary of Defense, or Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Approval or Senate Confirmation), 3 January 2014, incorporating Change 1, effective 30 June 2020
e.
DoD Instruction 1320.14 (DoD Commissioned Officer Promotion Program Procedures), 16 December 2020
f.
DoD Instruction 6495.03 (Defense Sexual Assault Advocate Certification Program (D-SAACP)), 28 February 2020
g.
Chief National Guard Bureau Manual 0400.01A (National Guard Complex Administrative Investigations Procedures), 16 May 2018
h.
Army Directive 2025-07 (Standardization of Investigation and Personnel Action Processes), 22 May 2025
i.
Army Regulation (AR) 15–6 (Procedures for Preliminary Inquiries, Administrative Investigations, and Boards of Officers), 22 June 2025
j.
AR 20–1 (Inspector General Activities and Procedures), 23 March 2020
k.
AR 27–10 (Military Justice), 8 January 2025
l.
AR 135–155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers), 12 February 2025
m.
AR 600–8–2 (Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag)), 5 April 2021
n.
AR 600–8–29 (Officer Promotions), 9 September 2020
o.
AR 600–52 (Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention Program), 11 February 2025
p.
Department of the Army Inspector General Agency, The Assistance and Investigations Guide, March 2025, available at:
Definitions
Contact
Any submission of a written or oral disclosure to an Inspector General (IG).
A contact will not be considered an IG complaint until sufficient information is submitted to meet the criteria of an IG complaint (see definition).
Contacts will be documented and recorded with a tracking number.
Credible Evidence/Information
(As applied to Army Regulation (AR) 15–6, AR 20–1, and AR 600–8–2 in Army Directive 2025-07)
Evidence of 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 Appointing Authority or Investigative Authority under similar circumstances to inquire further.
Information may be credible, even though not initially supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
However, to be credible, the information must be based on more than mere speculation and not clearly contradicted by known and material facts.
To be attributable, the Appointing Authority or Investigative Authority must be able to authenticate the evidence or information.
To be actionable, the original source(s) of information should be reasonably valid or verifiable.
Inspector General Complaint Alleging Misconduct
A formal assertion of misconduct, normally submitted on an official Department of Defense complaint form, Webform, or other similar documents, that a subject committed a wrong, or violation of law, regulation, instruction, policy, procedure, or rule.
Assertions, reports, opinions, or rumors of conditions detrimental to the operation, mission, or reputation of the Service or organization are not considered matters of individual misconduct but may be examined or reviewed separately.