The inspector general system

Army Lawyer, July-August, 2003 by Craig A. Meredith

What the IG Does Not Do

Army Regulation 20-1 carefully circumscribes the role of the IG. Restrictions on IG duties and activities are designed to reduce conflicts of interest and maintain impartiality. Inspectors general do not make command policy, recommend adverse personnel actions, or do anything that may jeopardize their ability to function as fair and impartial fact-finders. (22) Inspectors general are like baseball umpires who call balls and strikes, without concern for the final score of a game.

Army Regulation 20-1 also identifies several specific matters that are generally not appropriate for IG intervention. (23) First, when IGs receive allegations of a criminal nature they must refer them to the Criminal Investigation Command (CID) or the Provost Marshal. (24) Inspectors general normally do not inquire into criminal misconduct. They may, however, inquire into "military offenses," such as violations of orders and regulations, dereliction of duty, and conduct unbecoming an officer. (25) Second, IGs should not intervene in situations that have other means of redress or remedy until the complainant has exhausted all administrative remedies, including appeal procedures. (26) In such cases, IG involvement will be limited to a due process review. (27) This means that if the complainant received all process provided under applicable law and regulation for the matter, the IG will not review the underlying command or agency determination. The following areas are generally not appropriate for IG intervention: courts-martial, nonjudicial punishment, evaluation reports, involuntary separation actions, reports of survey, reprimands, claims, and complaints made under Article 138, Uniform Code of Military Justice. (28) Inspector general intervention is also inappropriate for civilian employee grievances, appeals of adverse employee actions, Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaints, and other matters that affect employment. (29) If procedures exist within a regulation or system for correcting errors, improprieties, or injustices, IGs must allow all such procedures to run their course before intervening. Third, IGs do not normally investigate allegations of professional misconduct made against Army lawyers, whether civilian or military. (30) When an IG receives a complaint alleging professional misconduct by an Army lawyer, he will immediately forward the complaint to the DAIG Legal Advisor without taking any action on the matter. After verifying that an allegation of professional responsibility has been made, (31) the DAIG Legal Advisor will forward the allegation to the senior counsel having jurisdiction over the subject lawyer. (32) In some cases, such as allegations of reprisals in violation of the MWPA, the IG investigates and then forwards the results to the appropriate senior counsel for action under professional responsibility regulations. Allegations of professional misconduct involving judge advocates under the supervision of The Judge Advocate General are forwarded to the Standards of Conduct Office (SOCO). (33) The DAIG Legal Advisor does not assess the credibility of allegations before forwarding them to supervisory counsel. The DAIG Legal Advisor also forwards all allegations of mismanagement (34) made against supervisory lawyers within the Judge Advocate Legal Service to SOCO. (35)