The Secretary of the Air Force Office of the Inspector General Complaints Resolution Directorate Inspector General Guide for Investigating Officers SAF/IGQ 112 Luke Avenue, Suite 150 Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling, DC 20032 (202) 404-5350 DSN 754-5350 Current as of February 2012 Table of Contents Foreword.............................................................................................................................7   Chapter 1: Introduction......................................................................................................8   1.1.   Guide Overview......................................................................................................8   1.2.   Authority to Conduct IG Investigations..................................................................8   1.3.   Purpose of the IG System.......................................................................................8   1.4.   Standard of Proof....................................................................................................8   Chapter 2: General Considerations....................................................................................9   2.1.   Matters Appropriate for IG Investigation...............................................................9   2.1.1.   Reprisal...............................................................................................................9   2.1.2.   Restricted Access (Restriction).........................................................................10   2.1.3.   Improper Mental Health Evaluation (MHE) Referrals.....................................10   2.1.3.1.   Coercion............................................................................................................10   2.1.3.2.   Improper Procedures.........................................................................................11   2.1.3.3.   MHE as Reprisal...............................................................................................11   2.1.4.   Abuse of Authority...........................................................................................11   2.1.5.   Fraud, Waste or Abuse (FWA).........................................................................12   2.2.   Matters More Appropriate for Alternative Grievance Channels..........................12   Chapter 3: The Investigative Team – Qualifications and Responsibilities......................14   3.1.   Investigative Team Overview...............................................................................14   3.2.   Appointing Authority............................................................................................14   3.3.   The IG...................................................................................................................14   3.4.   The Legal Advisor................................................................................................14   3.5.   The IO...................................................................................................................15   2 3.5.1.   Investigative Duties..........................................................................................15 3.5.2.   Post-Investigative Duties ...............................................................................156 3.6.   Technical Advisor.................................................................................................16   3.7.   Administrative Assistant.......................................................................................16   Chapter 4: Initiating the Investigation (The Appointing Authority)................................17   4.1.   Frame the Allegations...........................................................................................17   4.2.   Appointment Letter...............................................................................................17   Chapter 5: Conducting the Investigation.........................................................................18   5.1.   Preparation Tips....................................................................................................18   5.1.1.   Investigative Plan..............................................................................................18   5.1.2.   Question Formulation.......................................................................................18   5.1.2.1.   Relevance..........................................................................................................18   5.1.2.2.   Organization......................................................................................................18   5.1.2.3.   Thoroughness....................................................................................................18   5.1.2.4.   Form of Interview Questions............................................................................19   5.2.   Evidence Collection..............................................................................................19   5.2.1.   Testimony.........................................................................................................19   5.2.1.1.   Witness Availability..........................................................................................19   5.2.1.1.1.   Active Duty Military.....................................................................................20   5.2.1.1.2.   DoD Civilians...............................................................................................20   5.2.1.1.3.   Civilians........................................................................................................20   5.2.1.1.4.   Retirees.........................................................................................................20   5.2.1.1.5.   Minors...........................................................................................................20   5.2.1.1.6.   Air National Guard and Reserve Personnel..................................................20   5.2.1.2.   Order of Witnesses............................................................................................20   3 5.2.1.3.   Interview Locations..........................................................................................21   5.2.1.4.   Testimony Format.............................................................................................21   5.2.1.5.   Rights Advisement............................................................................................22   5.2.1.5.1.   Military.........................................................................................................22   5.2.1.5.2.   Civilian..........................................................................................................22   5.2.1.6.   Third Party Presence During Interviews...........................................................23   5.2.1.6.1.   Labor Union Representatives........................................................................23   5.2.1.6.2.   Attorneys.......................................................................................................23   5.2.1.6.3.   Other Personal Representatives....................................................................23   5.2.1.7.   Confidentiality..................................................................................................23   5.2.1.8.   Immunity...........................................................................................................23   5.2.1.9.   Handoff Policy..................................................................................................24   5.2.2.   Physical Evidence.............................................................................................24   5.2.2.1.   Objects..............................................................................................................24   5.2.2.2.   Documents........................................................................................................24   5.2.2.3.   Circumstantial Evidence...................................................................................24   5.2.2.4.   Computer Evidence...........................................................................................25   5.2.3.   Adding New Allegations...................................................................................25   5.2.3.1.   During the Investigation...................................................................................25   5.2.3.2.   Post-Investigation.............................................................................................26   5.2.4.   How Much Investigation is Enough?................................................................26   5.2.5.   Prepare to Write................................................................................................26   Chapter 6: Report Writing...............................................................................................27   6.1.   ROI Format...........................................................................................................27   6.1.1.   Authority and Scope.........................................................................................27   4 6.1.2.   Introduction: Background and Allegations......................................................27   6.1.3.   Findings, Analysis, and Conclusion.................................................................27   6.1.3.1.   Issue..................................................................................................................28   6.1.3.2.   Facts..................................................................................................................28   6.1.3.3.   Rules.................................................................................................................28   6.1.3.4.   Analysis.............................................................................................................29   6.1.3.4.1.   Credibility.....................................................................................................29   6.1.3.4.2.   Corroboration................................................................................................30   6.1.3.4.3.   Clarity...........................................................................................................30   6.1.3.5.   Conclusion........................................................................................................30   6.1.4.   Recommendations.............................................................................................30   6.2.   Case File................................................................................................................30   6.2.1.   Legal Reviews...................................................................................................31   6.2.2.   Technical Reviews............................................................................................31   6.2.3.   Appointing Authority Action............................................................................31   6.2.4.   Addendum.........................................................................................................31   6.3.   Report Markings...................................................................................................31   Chapter 7: Post-Report Duties of the IO..........................................................................32   7.1.   Rework..................................................................................................................32   7.2.   Confidentiality......................................................................................................32   7.3.   Records.................................................................................................................32   Attachment 1: Proposed Test for Abuse of Authority.....................................................33   Attachment 2: “IFRAC” Sample.....................................................................................34   Attachment 3: Witness Invitation Letter..........................................................................38   Attachment 4: Sample Privacy Act Statement.................................................................39   5 Attachment 5: Standard Format for Summarized Testimony..........................................40   Attachment 6: Sample Report of Investigation (ROI).....................................................41   6 Foreword The Secretary of the Air Force, Complaints Resolution Directorate (SAF/IGQ) administers the Air Force Inspector General (IG) Complaints Resolution Program for the Air Force community. The IG Complaints Resolution Program is a leadership tool to promptly and objectively resolve problems affecting the Air Force mission. When necessary, the IG accomplishes this through objective fact-finding in the form of IG complaint analyses and investigations that address both the concerns of complainants and the best interests of the Air Force. AFI 90-301, Inspector General Complaints Resolution (23 August 2011), establishes the procedural requirements for the Complaints Resolution Program and IG investigations. This guide focuses on the duties and responsibilities of the Investigating Officer (IO). It does not supersede the direction contained in AFI 90- 301, but presents the IO with a guide more specifically tailored to the duties of an IO. The information in this guide is for informational purposes only. In no way should this guide be cited or used as an authority/reference. 7 Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1. Guide Overview. The intent of this guide is to provide Investigating Officers (IOs) investigating Inspector General (IG) complaints the tools they need to effectively conduct IG investigations. 1.2. Authority to Conduct IG Investigations. The Secretary of the Air Force has sole responsibility for the function of the Inspector General of the Air Force (Title 10, United States Code, Sections 8014 and 8020). When directed by the Secretary of the Air Force or the Chief of Staff, the Inspector General of the Air Force (SAF/IG) has the authority to inquire into and report upon the discipline, efficiency, and economy of the Air Force and performs any other duties prescribed by the Secretary or the Chief of Staff. Pursuant to AFI 90-301, Inspector General Complaints Resolution, authority to investigate IG complaints within the Air Force rests with IG offices at all organizational levels. To conduct an IG investigation, IOs must be appointed in writing by an “appointing authority,” typically a wing commander or, when delegated this authority, the wing IG. 1.3. Purpose of the IG System. An IG investigation is one aspect of the IG complaints resolution system. IGs have a number of tools to resolve complaints, including dismissal, referral, assist, and transfer. The IO normally only becomes involved when these other tools have not resolved the complaint, and the IG has determined an investigation is appropriate. IG investigations are administrative in nature – they are fact finding rather than judicial proceedings. They are not criminal proceedings in which proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required but administrative investigations providing commanders with facts upon which to base decisions. Investigations require collection of documents, taking sworn testimony from complainants, subjects, and other witnesses, and documentation of the findings in a Report of Investigation (ROI). Commanders appointed in accordance with AFI 51-604, Appointment to and Assumption of Command, and AFI 38-101, Air Force Organization, have an inherent authority to conduct a Commander-Directed Investigation (CDI) to investigate systemic or procedural problems or to look into matters regarding individual conduct or responsibility. CDIs are administrative investigations, and are independent of the IG system. 1.4. Standard of Proof. The standard of proof for an IG investigation is a “preponderance of the credible evidence.” When it is more likely than not that events have occurred as alleged, a preponderance of the evidence exists, and the IO may consider the allegation to be substantiated. Put another way, the IO may substantiate a finding when the greater weight or quality of the evidence indicates the alleged misconduct occurred. When weighing the evidence, IOs should consider factors such as the witness’s knowledge, bias, motive, intent and the ability to recall and relate events. At all times, you as the IO may use your own common sense, life experiences and knowledge of the ways of the world to assess the credibility of witnesses you interview. However, you must fully document these inferences in the ROI. 8 Chapter 2: General Considerations. 2.1. Matters Appropriate for IG Investigation. Complaints of any one of the “Big Three” issues – reprisal, restriction, or improper mental health evaluation referral – must be handled within the IG system. At their discretion, IGs may also choose to investigate other types of alleged wrongdoing, including abuse of authority; fraud, waste or abuse; and other violations of a law or regulation. AFI 90-301 provides more guidance on matters that are and are not appropriate for IG investigation; this guide seeks to merely highlight certain issues for IOs. 2.1.1. Reprisal. Reprisal is a violation of Title 10 of the United States Code, Section 1034. Reprisal occurs when a responsible management official (RMO)1 takes (or threatens to take) an unfavorable personnel action; or withholds (or threatens to withhold) a favorable personnel action, to retaliate against a member of the armed forces who made or prepared to make a protected communication. Any lawful communication, regardless of the subject, to an IG or to Congress, is considered protected. Additionally, a protected communication occurs when a member who reasonably believes he/she has evidence of a violation of law or regulation (regardless of whether he/she is the victim), makes a lawful communication disclosing this to an authorized recipient, such as a commander or first sergeant. AFI 90-301 sets forth an “acid test” for evaluating reprisal allegations, and this “acid test” is fully defined in DoD IGDG 7050.6, Chapter 2. The “acid test” consists of four questions: 1. Did the member make or prepare a communication protected by statute? 2. Was an unfavorable personnel action taken or threatened, or was a favorable action withheld or threatened to be withheld following the protected communication? 3. Did the official responsible for taking, withholding, or threatening the personnel action know about the protected communication? 4. Does the evidence establish that the personnel action would have been taken, withheld, or threatened if the protected communication had not been made? When analyzing question four, the IO is required to consider the following five factors: (a) reasons stated by the RMO for taking, withholding, or threatening the action; (b) reasonableness of the actions taken, withheld, or threatened considering the complainant’s performance and conduct; (c) consistency of the action(s) of RMO(s) with past practice; (d) motive of the 1 Responsible Management Official and other terms used in this guide are defined in Attachment 1 of AFI 90-301. Definitions can be extremely helpful to you in analyzing whether an allegation is substantiated. 9 RMO for the action; and (e) procedural correctness of the action. If questions one through three of the “acid test” are answered in the affirmative and question four is answered in the negative, then reprisal has generally occurred. If the answer to any of the first three questions is “no,” or if the answer to question four is “yes,” reprisal cannot be substantiated. However, where appropriate, the underlying personnel action must then be analyzed to determine whether an abuse of authority occurred. Reference the Abuse of Authority acid test and discussion contained in this guide and AFI 90-301. 2.1.2. Restricted Access (Restriction). 10 U.S.C. §1034 also states that a military member may not be restricted or prohibited from making a protected communication to an inspector general or member of Congress. Restriction can result from either private or public statements that may reasonably discourage Air Force members from contacting an inspector general or member of Congress. Proper analysis of these complaints requires an in-depth review of both of the following issues: (1) What was the intent of the RMO who allegedly restricted the member?; and (2) Would a reasonable person, under similar circumstances, believe he/she was actually restricted from making a protected communication based on the RMO’s actions? An example of restriction would be if, during a commander’s call, a squadron commander were to tell the squadron that all problems must go through him or her first. However, if during a commander’s call, the commander were to tell the squadron that he or she prefers to solve problems within the chain of command and also informs the squadron that they are free to file complaints with their Congressman or IG, without fear of retribution, this would not constitute restriction. 2.1.3. Improper Mental Health Evaluation (MHE) Referrals. These cases typically involve coercion, improper procedures, or reprisal. 2.1.3.1. Coercion. Commanders and other supervisory personnel may encourage an individual to seek an MHE on his or her own, but they may not coerce the member to do so.2 The difference between encouragement and coercion is often very difficult to discern. Typically, when an Airman reports to the Mental Health Clinic, he or she completes an intake form that asks whether the Airman has come to the clinic voluntarily. While an indication on the form that the Airman is there voluntarily may be compelling evidence, it does not necessarily end the inquiry. In deciding whether a commander or supervisor’s action constitutes coercion, IOs might consider factors such as the complainant’s age, intelligence, experience, length of military service, the circumstances surrounding the coercion, and whether the complainant knew of his or her right to refuse to voluntarily seek a 2 See AFI 44-109, Paragraph 4.1. 10