The inspector general system

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

(8.) AR 20-1, supra note 2, para. 8-3i(1) ("As a matter of Army policy, when such allegations are suspected against a senior official ..., the commander or command shall halt any inquiry or investigation ... against the senior official and report and all such allegations directly to DAIG's Investigations Division for determination of further action.").

(9.) Id. para. 1-6a.

(10.) Id. para. 1-7.

(11.) Id. para. 8-3a.

(12.) U.S. DEP'T OF DEFENSE, DIR. 5500.7-R, JOINT ETHICS REGULATION [section] 1-413a (Aug. 1993).

(13.) 10 U.S.C. [section] 1034 (2000); AR 20-1, supra note 2, para. 1-11.

(14.) The Inspector General (TIG) has withheld the authority to investigate soldier allegations of reprisals to MACOM and higher-level IGs. AR 20-1, supra note 2, para. 8-9c.

(15.) 10 U.S.C. [section] 1034b ("Prohibition of Retaliatory Personnel Actions--(1) No person may take (or threaten to take) an unfavorable personnel action, or withhold (or threaten to withhold) a favorable personnel action, as a reprisal against a member of the armed forces for making or preparing [a protected communication].").

(16.) U.S. DEP'T OF DEFENSE, DIR. 7050.6, MILITARY WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION [section] 5.1 (23 June 2000),

(17.) Id. [section] 5.1.5; AR 20-1, supra note 2, para. 8-9c(5).

(18.) U.S. DEP'T OF ARMY, REG. 600-20, ARMY COMMAND POLICY paras. 5-8, 5-12 (13 May 2002) [hereinafter AR 600-20].

(19.) 10 U.S.C. [section] 1034(b)-(c).

(20.) U.S. DEP'T OF DEFENSE, INSPECTOR GENERAL GUIDE 7050.6, GUIDE TO INVESTIGATING REPRISAL AND IMPROPER REFERRALS FOR MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATIONS para. 2.5 (6 Feb. 1996). Responsible management officials include "[t]he official(s) who influenced or recommended to the deciding official that he/she take, withhold, or threaten the action." Id.

(21.) AR 600-20, supra note 18, para. 5-8d. Some instances of substantiated allegations of reprisal have resulted in letters of reprimand from the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army for senior officials and for their Staff Judge Advocates. A substantiated reprisal allegation may prevent promotion to general officer rank. Interview with Hank Finley, Investigator, U.S. Dep't of Army, Office of the Inspector General, in Arlington, Va. (July 24, 2003)

(22.) AR 20-1, supra note 2, para. 2-6b.

(23.) Id. para. 4-4f.

(24.) Id. para. 8-10c(4)(a).

(25.) Id. paras. 4-4f(l)(a), 8-3b.

(26.) Id. para. 4-4f-k.

(27.) Id. para. 4-4f(2).

(28.) Id. para. 4-4j. This list of issues that do not fall with the 1G purview because other avenues of redress are available is not exclusive. Id.

(29.) Id. para. 4-4k.

(30.) Id. para. 8-3b(5).

(31.) Army Regulation 20-1 does not define "Professional misconduct" or distinguish it from "personal misconduct" which may be investigated by an IG. See generally id. Supervisory lawyers must report violations of the Army Rules of Professional Conduct and allegations that raise a "substantial question as to a lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer" to the Standards of Conduct Office (SOCO). U.S. DEP'T OF ARMY, REG. 27-1, JUICE ADVOCATE LEGAL SERVICES para. 7-2b (30 Sept. 1996) [hereinafter AR 27-1]. Although it is not a supervisory legal office, the DAIG legal office forwards all allegations that fall within the guidance of AR 27-1 to SOCO. See id. para. 7-2b.