The inspector general system

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

IG Allegations

The most important aspect of IG investigations that judge advocates must understand is the development of IG allegations. There are no published lists of IG "offenses," and there are no model specifications for IG allegations. Nonetheless, there are four elements to every IG allegation: (1) identifying the subjects; (2) determining whether the actions were improper; (3) determining what actions the subjects took; and (4) identifying the standard the actions violated. (36)

The first three elements are simple. The "who" of an IG allegation must be an individual. (37) The "chain of command" or the unit cannot be the subject of an IG investigation. Next, the alleged behavior must be improper, but it need not be criminal and no specific intent to violate a standard is required. Simple mistakes or negligence may form the basis of an IG allegation. Moreover, the behavior in question does not need to be stated with the specificity of a charge and specification under the UCMJ. For example, there is no requirement to state the place, date, and time in an IG allegation. (38)

The "standard" requirement requires more explanation. An IG "standard" is any policy, law, or regulation that Army personnel are required to follow. There are three categories of IG standards: (1) non-punitive violations of regulatory guidance; (2) punitive violations of law (UCMJ, federal, state, and local) and regulation; and (3) violations of established policy and SOP. (39) Inspectors general frequently use a variety of non-punitive regulatory guidance from diverse sources as standards. These sources may include the Office of Government Ethics; the DOD; Headquarters, Department of the Army; or local installation regulations. Army Regulation 600-100, which requires leaders to treat subordinates with "dignity, respect, fairness, and consistency," is a good example of nonpunitive regulatory guidance that may serve as an appropriate IG standard. (40) Violations of law or punitive regulations may also serve as standards, but if adverse action appears certain, an IG office would not usually conduct an inquiry. (41) Because of the IG's ability to be discreet and maintain confidentiality, commanders often direct IGs to inquire into allegations of a sensitive nature involving leaders, such as improper relationships. (42) Established policies and SOPs, such as pamphlets, field manuals, and unit policy letters, may serve as IG standards. (43) Inspectors general often seek legal advice from their servicing judge advocates when they are developing standards for allegations. Judge advocates must think broadly when advising IGs concerning standards because of the plethora of applicable laws, regulations, and policies.

IG Records

The Inspector General closely controls IG records. This tight control is necessary because the "[u]nauthorized use or release of IG records can seriously compromise the IG's effectiveness as a trusted adviser to the commander." (44) Inspector general records include: reports of inquiry, investigation, or inspection; testimonies, correspondence, and documents received from witnesses and persons seeking IG assistance; and IG Worldwide Network (IGNET) data processing files. (45) All IG records are the property of the Secretary of the Army, who has delegated release authority to TIG. (46) The Inspector General has further delegated records release authority to the Deputy TIG, the DAIG legal advisor, and the deputy legal advisor. (47) With the exception of inspection records, local IGs may not release IG records, even for official uses. (48) Inspectors general are authorized to release limited information concerning potential allegations, witnesses, and evidence to follow-on investigators without first seeking approval from the DAIG Records Release Office. (49)