AR 20-1 INSPECTOR GENERAL ACTIVITIES AND PROCEDURES

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN8255-AR_20-1-000-WEB-1.pdf

UNCLASSIFIED
Army Regulation 20–1
Assistance, Inspections,
Investigations, and Follow up
Inspector
General
Activities and
Procedures
Headquarters
Department of the Army
Washington, DC
23 March 2020
Summary of Change
AR 20 –1
Inspector General Activities and Procedures
This major revision, dated 23 March 2020—
o Replaces Title 10, United States Code, Sections 3014, 3020, and 3065 with Title 10, United States Code, Sections
7014, 7020, and 7065 in accordance with the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019 (paras 1–4a(1); 1–
6a(1), (2), and (3)).
o Adds a requirement for The Inspector General to include the sexual assault prevention and response program as
a special-interest item for selected Department of the Army Inspector General-level inspections (para 1–4a(8)(g)).
o Changes the reporting requirement to Department of the Army Inspector General’s Assistance Division to 5 days
for allegations of whistleblower reprisal (para 1–4b(5)(g)).
o Adds a paragraph consolidating under the Chief, National Guard Bureau all responsibilities for implementing the
Army IG system within the Army National Guard (para 1–4d).
o Clarifies the attributes associated with Army inspectors general (para 1–7b).
o Clarifies the nature and use of inspector general credentials (para 1–7e(4)).
o Revises guidelines for inspectors general and their role in commenting on command and other policy (para 1–7j).
o Provides expanded guidelines regarding confidentiality for Soldiers and Civilians leaving inspector general duty
(para 1–13g(5)).
o Changes the force structure reporting requirement to a single annual report due by 1 October (paras 2–1e and B–
6d).
o Expands guidance regarding requests for exception to inspector general personnel policy (para 2–2c).
o Clarifies the primary category of inspector general as commissioned officers, warrant officers, and Civilians in
the grade of General Schedule-11 and above (para 2–2d).
o Clarifies the specific duty limitations of acting inspectors general (para 2–2g(2)).
o Authorizes warrant officers serving as inspectors general to receive the additional skill identifier of 5N (para 2–
4a).
o Provides expanded guidance regarding the termination of inspectors general from inspector general duty (para 2–
5b).
o Expands the guidance for requesting exceptions for inspectors general to perform non-inspector general duty
(para 2–7d).
o Completely revises and reorganizes the guidelines regarding the use and retention of Army inspector general
records (chap 3).
o Adds policy guidance on Inspector General engagement activities with U.S. allies and partner nations (para 4–
1c).
o Establishes the inspector general advanced course as a recurring, five-year requirement for Civilian inspectors
general (para 4–2b(6)).
o Provides expanded guidelines regarding school requirements for Soldiers and Civilians who return to inspector
general duty after a break or who have been assigned to Joint inspector general duty (paras 4–2b(7) and (8)).
o Provides policy for readmitting inspector general students to the inspector general basic course following
dismissal (para 4–2e).
o Updates the role of inspectors general in intelligence oversight inspections (para 5–3a).
o Renames Department of the Army Inspector General’s Information Assurance Inspections Division with
Cybersecurity Inspections Division and revises the division’s purpose and procedures (paras 5 – 8, 5 – 9, and 5 –10).
o Adds inspector general responsibilities regarding the indebtedness of military personnel (para 6–3b).
o Expands the list of subjects that have established avenues of redress (para 6–3g).
o Updates the guidance relating to an inspector general's role regarding equal opportunity complaints (para 6–3i).
o Revises the purpose and general approach associated with inspector general investigations (para 7–1a).
o Updates the rights of subjects in inspector general investigations (para 7–1g(2)).
o Incorporates the requirements of Army Directive 2018 – 01 by revising the procedures for referring allegations to
the command and for closing those referrals in the inspector general system (para 7–1i(3)).
o Updates the definition of senior official for Army National Guard officers (para 7–1l).
o Provides inspectors general with guidelines regarding allegations involving minor infractions (para 7–1m).
o Updates the procedures for processing allegations of whistleblower reprisal (para 7–3b).
o Replaces full spectrum operations with unified land operations (chap 8).
o Updates the nomination requirements and attributes for inspectors generals (para B– 1).
o Requires the command’s chief warrant officer and senior enlisted Soldier to comment on the suitability of locally-
nominated warrant officers and noncommissioned officers prior to their nomination submissions (para B–2e).
o Updates the standard inspector general titles (table B– 2).
o Updates the summary of inspector general reporting and major coordination requirements to agree with changes
made throughout the regulation (app D).
o Updates the test questions for Army internal controls to reflect changes made to the regulation (para E – 4).
o Revises the glossary to include or revise definitions of an allegation, Career Program 55, first party, inspector
general oversight, reprisal, restriction, retaliation, second party, senior official, and third party (glossary).
*This regulation supersedes AR 20-1, dated 29 November 2010 and Army Directive 2018-01 is rescinded upon publication of this AR.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020
UNCLASSIFIED i
Headquarters
Department of the Army
Washington, DC
*Army Regulation 20–1
23 March 2020 Effective 23 April 2020
Assistance, Inspections, Investigations, and Follow up
Inspector General Activities and Procedures
History. This publication is a major re-
vision.
Summary. This regulation prescribes
the responsibility and policy for the selec-
tion and duties of inspectors general
throughout the Army. It describes inspec-
tor general functions, including teaching
and training, inspections, assistance, and
investigations. Although the fundamental
inspector general role and functions have
not changed, this revision incorporates
numerous policy and mandated proce-
dural changes affecting inspector general
activities. This regulation implements
DODD 5505.06.
Applicability. This regulation applies
to the Regular Army, the Army National
Guard/Army National Guard of the
United States, and the U.S. Army Re-
serve, unless otherwise stated. It also ap-
plies to Department of the Army Civilian
employees and nonappropriated fund em-
ployees. During mobilization, the propo-
nent may modify chapters and policies
contained in this regulation.
Proponent and exception authority.
The proponent of this regulation is The In-
spector General. The proponent has the
authority to approve exceptions or waiv-
ers to this regulation that are consistent
with controlling law and regulations. The
proponent may delegate this approval au-
thority, in writing, to a division chief
within the proponent agency or its direct
reporting unit or field operating agency, in
the grade of colonel or the civilian equiv-
alent. Activities may request a waiver to
this regulation by providing justification
that includes a full analysis of the ex-
pected benefits and must include formal
review by the activity’s senior legal of-
ficer. All waiver requests will be endorsed
by the commander or senior leader of the
requesting activity and forwarded through
their higher headquarters to the policy
proponent. Refer to AR 25 –30 for specific
guidance.
Army internal control process.
This regulation contains internal control
provisions in accordance with AR 11 –2
and identifies key internal controls that
must be evaluated (see appendix E).
Supplementation. Supplementation
of this regulation and establishment of
command and local forms are prohibited
without prior approval from The Inspector
General, 1700 Army Pentagon, Washing-
ton, DC 20310 –1700.
Suggested improvements. Users
are invited to send comments and sug-
gested improvements on DA Form 2028
(Recommended Changes to Publications
and Blank Forms) directly to The U.S.
Army Inspector General School, 5500
21st Street, Suite 2305, Fort Belvoir, VA
22060– 5935.
Distribution. This regulation is availa-
ble in electronic media only and is in-
tended for the Regular Army, the Army
National Guard/Army National Guard of
the United States, and the U.S. Army Re-
serve.
Contents (Listed by paragraph and page number)
Chapter 1
The Inspector General System, page 1
Section I
Introduction, page 1
Purpose • 1 – 1, page 1
References and forms • 1 – 2, page 1
Explanation of abbreviations and terms • 1 –3, page 1
Responsibilities • 1 – 4, page 1
Records management (recordkeeping) requirements • 1 – 5, page 6
Statutory authorities • 1 – 6, page 7
Section II
Inspector General System, page 7
Inspector general concept and system • 1 – 7, page 7
Contents—Continued
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 ii
Inspector general access to information • 1 – 8, page 11
The Inspector General • 1– 9, page 11
Inspector general guidelines for U.S. Army Reserve matters • 1 – 10, page 12
Inspector general guidelines for Army National Guard matters • 1 – 11, page 12
Inspectors general, the U.S. Army Installation Management Command, and geographic support • 1 – 12, page 12
Section III
Confidentiality, page 13
Confidentiality • 1 – 13, page 13
Prohibited activity and punitive provisions • 1– 14, page 16
Chapter 2
Inspector General Personnel, page 17
Inspector general positions • 2 – 1, page 17
Inspector general categories • 2 – 2, page 17
Wear of inspector general insignia • 2 – 3, page 24
Inspector general certification • 2 – 4, page 24
Length of inspector general assignments • 2 – 5, page 24
Inspector general oath • 2 –6, page 26
Inspector general duty restrictions • 2 – 7, page 27
Chapter 3
Inspector General Records, page 28
Nature of inspector general records and information • 3 – 1, page 28
Protection of inspector general records • 3 –2, page 28
Permissible releases of inspector general information • 3 – 3, page 29
Permissible releases of inspector general records • 3 – 4, page 29
Use of inspector general records for adverse action • 3 – 5, page 30
Impermissible releases of inspector general records and information • 3 –6, page 31
Requests for inspector general records under the Freedom of Information Act • 3– 7, page 32
Release of records and reports under the military whistleblower reprisal statute • 3 – 8, page 32
Inspector general records in support of litigation • 3 – 9, page 32
Requests by labor organizations • 3 – 10, page 33
Factual amendment of inspector general records • 3 – 11, page 33
Requests for reconsideration of inspector general findings, opinions, judgment, or conclusions • 3 – 12, page 34
Chapter 4
The Inspector General Teaching and Training Function, page 34
Teaching and training as a function • 4 – 1, page 34
The U.S. Army Inspector General School • 4– 2, page 35
Other inspector general training • 4 – 3, page 37
Chapter 5
The Inspector General Inspections Function, page 38
Section I
Broad Inspection Policy, page 38
Inspector general inspections—purpose and procedures • 5– 1, page 38
Inspector general inspection reports • 5 – 2, page 41
Section II
Intelligence Oversight Inspections, page 42
Intelligence oversight inspections—purpose and procedures • 5 – 3, page 42
Army headquarters-level intelligence oversight inspections • 5 – 4, page 42
Section III
Technical Inspections, page 43
Contents—Continued
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 iii
Technical inspections—purpose and procedures • 5– 5, page 43
Sensitive activity inspections • 5 – 6, page 43
Technical Inspections Division special inspections • 5 – 7, page 44
Section IV
Cybersecurity Inspections, page 45
Cybersecurity inspections—purpose and procedures • 5 – 8, page 45
Cybersecurity inspection follow-up procedures • 5 – 9, page 45
Annual cybersecurity report • 5 – 10, page 45
Chapter 6
The Inspector General Assistance Function, page 45
Inspector general assistance—purpose and procedures • 6 –1, page 45
Special types of complaints and complainants • 6 – 2, page 52
Matters inappropriate for inspector general action or with limited inspector general involvement • 6 – 3, page 54
Assistance visits • 6 – 4, page 57
Guidelines for Army National Guard assistance matters • 6 – 5, page 57
Chapter 7
The Inspector General Investigations Function, page 57
Inspector general investigations—purpose and procedures • 7 – 1, page 57
Reports of investigation and investigative inquiry • 7 –2, page 66
Special investigations and inquiries • 7 – 3, page 67
Chapter 8
The Role of Inspectors General in Unified Land Operations, page 70
Inspector general—operational role • 8 – 1, page 70
Organizing for unified land operations • 8 – 2, page 71
Resources required to support unified land operations • 8 –3, page 72
Staff estimates • 8 – 4, page 72
Inspector general functions in unified land operations • 8 –5, page 72
Law of war violations • 8 – 6, page 73
Exercises • 8 – 7, page 74
Chapter 9
The Role of Inspectors General in Joint Operations, page 74
Joint and expeditionary mindset • 9 – 1, page 74
The role of the inspector general in Joint military operations • 9 – 2, page 74
The transition from the Army to the Joint environment • 9 –3, page 74
Chapter 10
Information Management, page 75
Inspector General Network • 10 – 1, page 75
Purpose • 10– 2, page 76
Inspector General Network operations and responsibilities • 10 – 3, page 76
Security • 10 –4, page 78
Enhancements • 10 – 5, page 78
Appendixes
A. References, page 79
B. Inspector General Military Nomination, Civilian Hiring, and Force Management Requirements, page 88
C. Department of Defense Inspector General Semiannual Report to the Congress, page 97
D. Summary of Inspector General Reporting and Major Coordination Requirements, page 98
E. Internal Control Evaluation, page 103
Contents—Continued
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 iv
Table List
Table 2 – 1: Inspector general categories of service, page 18
Table 5 – 1: Sensitive activity inspections, page 43
Table B– 1: Inspector general nomination packet contents, page 89
Table B– 2: Standard inspector general titles, page 95
Table D– 1: Summary of inspector general major reporting and coordination requirements, page 98
Table D– 2: List of key Department of the Army Inspector General mailing addresses, page 101
Figure List
Figure 1 – 1: Triangle of confidentiality, page 15
Figure 6 – 1: Sample permanent notice memorandum of the rights of Soldiers to present complaints, page 47
Figure 6 – 2: Sample permanent notice memorandum of the rights of Civilian employees to present com-
plaints, page 48
Glossary
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 1
Chapter 1
The Inspector General System
Section I
Introduction
1–1. Purpose
This regulation prescribes policy and procedures concerning the mission and duties of The Inspector General (TIG).
It also prescribes duties, missions, standards, and requirements for inspectors general (IGs) throughout the Army.
Responsibilities are prescribed for commanders and heads of agencies, activities, centers, and installations for
the support of IG activities.
1–2. References and forms
See appendix A.
1–3. Explanation of abbreviations and terms
See the glossary.
1–4. Responsibilities
a. The Inspector General. TIG will—
(1) Inquire into, and periodically report on, the discipline, efficiency, economy, morale, training, and readiness of
the Army to the Secretary of the Army (SECARMY) and the Chief of Staff, Army (CSA), in accordance with Section
7020, Title 10, United States Code (10 USC 7020).
(2) Extend the eyes, ears, voice, and conscience of the SECARMY and CSA.
(3) Perform other duties as prescribed by the SECARMY or CSA.
(4) Periodically propose programs of inspection to the SECARMY and CSA and recommend additional inspections
and investigations as may appear appropriate.
(5) Cooperate fully with the Department of Defense Inspector General (DODIG) in connection with the perfor-
mance of any duty or function by the DODIG, under 5 USC, regarding the Department of the Army (DA).
(6) Maintain and safeguard the integrity and viability of the Army IG system and report on the effectiveness of the
system to the SECARMY and CSA.
(7) Develop and publish policy and doctrine for the Army IG system.
(8) Oversee the Army IG inspection program by—
(a) Providing the SECARMY and CSA a continuing assessment of the command, operational, managerial,
logistical, material, and administrative readiness of the Army.
(b) Serving as the functional proponent for Army inspection policy as outlined in AR 1 – 201.
(c) Conducting inspections of Armywide systemic issues as directed by the SECARMY and CSA.
(d) Directing inspections as prescribed by law, regulation, or as required.
(e) Reporting inspection results to the directing authority complete with findings, applicable root causes, recom-
mended solutions, and a recommended person or agency charged with implementing each solution.
(f) Conducting inspections of Army Special Access Programs (SAPs) and sensitive activities in accordance with
AR 380 – 381 and reporting the results as directed by the SECARMY or CSA.
(g) Including the sexual assault prevention and response program as a special-interest item for Department of the
Army Inspector General (DAIG)-level inspection visits to units, organizations, or activities that have responsibilities
regarding the prevention and response to sexual assault as required by Public Law 111 – 383.
(h) Providing intelligence oversight in accordance with AR 381 – 10 of intelligence activities conducted under the
provisions of Executive Order 12333 and Department of Defense Directive (DODD) 5148.13.
(i) Conducting security and technology protection inspections at selected Army Research, Development, and
Engineering Centers (RDECs); laboratories; and test facilities.
(j) Publishing inspection guidance for nuclear, chemical, biological, and nuclear reactor programs.
(k) Conducting inspections of nuclear, chemical, biological, and nuclear reactor programs.
(l) Conducting nuclear, chemical, and biological management evaluations.
(m) Conducting inspections of chemical warfare material responses and related support functions as directed by the
SECARMY.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 2
(n) Conducting cybersecurity inspections throughout the Army.
(o) Verifying the implementation of approved inspection recommendations and reporting the status of those rec-
ommendations to the Army’s senior leaders biannually.
(9) Provide assistance to persons on matters of interest to the Army by—
(a) Providing a system for resolving problems for Soldiers, Army Civilian employees, contract employees, Family
members, and retirees while protecting confidentiality to the maximum extent possible.
(b) Processing Department of Defense (DOD) Hotline cases related to Army activities.
(c) Processing equal opportunity complaints as inspector general action requests (IGARs) as an alternative to nor-
mal equal opportunity complaint channels but not subject to the timelines or procedures imposed by AR 600 – 20.
(10) Oversee Army IG investigations and special investigations by—
(a) Performing investigations and investigative inquiries directed by the SECARMY and CSA and submitting the
relevant reports of investigation (ROIs) and reports of investigative inquiry (ROIIs) to the respective directing
authority.
(b) Assessing or investigating alleged violations of the Army’s professional ethic (see AR 600 – 100 and
DOD 5500.07R).
(c) Processing DOD whistleblower reprisal investigations related to Army activities.
(d) Serving as the component-designated official for senior official allegations under the provisions of
DODD 5505.06.
(11) Conduct teaching and training throughout the Army by—
(a) Teaching Army policy, procedures, systems, and processes to help inspected units and organizations improve
operations and efficiency and accomplish command objectives.
(b) Disseminating information, innovative ideas, and lessons learned as a result of inspections and changes in pol-
icy.
(c) Assisting the SECARMY and CSA in teaching and training leaders on the fundamental tenets of the Army
professional ethic (see AR 600 – 100 and DOD 5500.07R).
(d) Training IGs and assistant IGs, overseeing The U.S. Army Inspector General School (TIGS), and providing
basic and advanced IG courses.
(12) Serve as the functional and personnel proponent for the Army IG system by—
(a) Selecting quality personnel to serve as IGs; approving or disapproving nominations of officers, warrant officers
(WOs), and noncommissioned officers (NCOs) to serve as IGs in specified categories (see chap 2 and app B, of this
regulation); approving or disapproving Army Civilians to serve as IGs; and approving or disapproving the removal or
early release of officers, WOs, and NCOs from IG duty, except for those personnel relieved for cause.
(b) Serving as the personnel proponent responsible for IG personnel selection and assignment policies and the de-
velopment, implementation, and sustainment of a civilian career program.
(c) Managing IG information systems.
(13) Perform coordinating staff functions by—
(a) Conducting overseas contingency operation planning for the DAIG and the IG system.
(b) Serving on boards, committees, councils, and similar organizations as directed by the SECARMY and
CSA.
(c) Maintaining custody of DAIG records on behalf of the SECARMY; serving as the access and amendment
refusal authority for Privacy Act (PA) requests for all IG records; and serving as the initial denial authority for Free-
dom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for all IG records.
(14) Serve as the IG for Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) and any National Capital Region field
operating agency when the field operating agency does not have an IG.
(15) Execute managers' internal control responsibilities in accordance with AR 11 –2.
(16) Serve as the HQDA focal point for interacting with the DODIG and other government IGs by—
(a) Maintaining liaison with IGs from within DOD, other military Services, other statutory IGs, and other agencies
concerning Army IG activities.
(b) Coordinating inspection and audit topics and schedules with the Government Accountability Office, the
DODIG, and the U.S. Army Audit Agency to resolve potential schedule conflicts and, if unresolved, deciding, within
the scope of the SECARMY’s and CSA’s guidance, whether to change or perform an inspection.
(c) Providing information on DODIG reports to HQDA and all Army IGs as needed.
(d) Serving as the Army’s point of contact for receiving and controlling DODIG investigations, to include directing
the appropriate Army agency or command to prepare responses to investigations.
b. Inspectors general. IGs will—
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 3
(1) Determine the state of the command’s discipline, efficiency, economy, morale, training, and readiness as di-
rected by the commander, director with an assigned IG, or State AG.
Note. Henceforth, the term commander refers to commanders at all levels, commanding generals, and directors who
are directing authorities for Army IGs, unless otherwise specified.
(2) Execute the Army IG system and its functions of inspections, assistance, investigations, and teaching and train-
ing on behalf of the commander; the command; and the Soldiers, Family members, DA Civilian employees,
contract employees, and retirees within the command, and inform the commander of the effectiveness of these
functions.
(3) Conduct inspections as directed by the SECARMY; CSA; Vice Chief of Staff, Army (VCSA); the commander;
or TIG as prescribed by law or regulation, to include—
(a) Conducting intelligence oversight inspections of intelligence activities and components within the command as
part of the Organizational Inspection Program (OIP) in accordance with Executive Order 12333, DODD 5148.13, and
AR 381 – 10.
(b) Assisting the Regional Health Command IG offices with inspecting at least once every two years, in accordance
with Public Law 110 – 181 and 113 –291, all military or government-owned quarters and housing facilities occupied
by recovering Service members under the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces. IGs will conduct these inspections in
accordance with standards and guidelines provided by U.S. Army Medical Command (MEDCOM) and approved by
TIG and submit the report to the applicable regional health command IG; the facility’s commander; the commander
of the hospital affiliated with the facility; the installation senior commander; and the garrison commander.
(c) Conducting followup assessments of inspections when required or directed by the commander to evaluate the
adequacy and effectiveness of the corrective action taken.
(4) Provide assistance on an area basis (or as directed by TIG) to commanders, Soldiers, Family members, Civilian
employees, retirees, and others who seek help on matters of Army interest (see para 6–1c, below) and enter those
assistance cases into the Inspector General Action Request System (IGARS) electronic database to support local and
Armywide trends analysis.
(5) Resolve allegations of impropriety brought to an IG by—
(a) Conducting investigations and investigative inquiries as directed by the directing authority, TIG, TIG designee,
the command IG, or as prescribed by law or regulation and then providing a report of such investigations and investi-
gative inquiries to the directing/approval authority.
(b) Reporting to TIG by entering into the IGARS database within 2 working days after receipt, when practicable,
the complete name of the subject(s) or suspect(s) and the specific allegation(s) identified in any IGAR that has resulted
in the initiation of an Army IG investigation or investigative inquiry against an Army enlisted Soldier, NCO, WO,
commissioned officer (non-promotable colonel and below), or Army Civilian employee (see para 7–1k(1)). Additional
reporting requirements for allegations against colonels appear in paragraphs 1–4b(5)(c) and 7–1l(1).
(c) Reporting to TIG through DAIG’s Investigations Division (SAIG – IN) within 2 working days any allegation
against a colonel presented to an IG that has resulted in the initiation of an IG investigation, investigative inquiry,
or command-directed investigation (see para 7–1k(2), below).
(d) Reporting to TIG through DAIG’s Investigations Division within 2 working days of receipt, when practicable,
from any source any allegation of impropriety, or knowledge of an impropriety, by a general officer; a promotable
colonel; a Professor, U.S. Military Academy (PUSMA); an Army National Guard (ARNG) colonel with a certificate
of eligibility (COE) (see AR 600 – 100); a member of the Civilian senior executive service (SES); and any other Army
Civilian employee of comparable grade or position. Special government employees (senior-level scientific or profes-
sional, senior-level defense intelligence, and highly qualified experts) are considered senior officials under this regu-
lation (see para 7–1l, below).
(e) Reporting to TIG through DAIG’s Intelligence Oversight Division (SAIG – IO) within 2 working days by secure
means any inspector general action request (IGAR) containing an allegation against any person in a leadership position
in a SAP or sensitive activity or an IGAR related to organizational functions or operations of a SAP or sensitive
activity as defined in AR 380 –381.
(f) Reporting allegations against all Army IGs (both uniformed and civilian) within 2 working days after receipt to
the next higher echelon IG for action concurrent with an information copy to TIG through DAIG’s Assistance Division
(SAIG–AC) and to the Army command (ACOM), the Army service component command (ASCC), or the direct
reporting unit (DRU) IG (see para 7–1j(1), below).
(g) Reporting to TIG through DAIG’s Assistance Division within 5 working days of receipt, and in accordance with
the procedures outlined in The Assistance and Investigations Guide, any allegation of whistleblower reprisal that
meets the requirements outlined in DODD 7050.06.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 4
(h) Referring suspected law of war violations immediately to the chain of command for action concurrent with a
report via confidential means to the next higher echelon IG and to TIG via DAIG’s Assistance Division; or, if the
violation involves a senior official, a report to TIG via DAIG’s Investigations Division (SAIG – IN) (see para 8 – 6,
below).
(6) Teach and train by—
(a) Teaching policy, procedures, systems, and processes to help organizations and activities improve operations
and efficiency and accomplish command objectives.
(b) Disseminating information, innovative ideas, and lessons learned.
(c) Training acting IGs, temporary assistant IGs, and administrative support personnel who are not required to at-
tend TIGS’s Basic Course using instructional materials provided by the school.
(d) Assisting leaders at all levels in teaching the Army professional ethic, the Warrior Ethos, and the
Army’s Civilian Corps Creed.
(7) Manage IG information and IG records in accordance with the provisions set forth in chapter 3, to include—
(a) Serving as the IG office of record (OOR), on behalf of the SECARMY, for local IG records and as the IG office
of inquiry (OOI) for all other tasked cases.
(b) Forwarding to TIG through DAIG’s legal advisor (SAIG – JA) all requests for release under FOIA and for
access and amendment of IG records under the PA (see chap 3).
(c) Forwarding or transmitting to TIG within 2 working days of request by DAIG any on-hand IG record required
to support time-sensitive personnel management decisions by the Army leadership.
(8) Review internal control requirements and responsibilities, to include—
(a) Complying with the basic requirements of the managers’ internal control program as outlined in AR
11 – 2 (see app E, below).
(b) Assisting the local office responsible for internal control in ensuring that internal control policies, standards,
and requirements have been effectively implemented within the organization.
(9) Provide staff functions as required, to include—
(a) Participating in the Program Budget Advisory Committee cycle at the ACOM, ASCC, DRU, installation, or
State levels and developing the budget for all IG functions and activities, to include identifying required budget and
manpower resources and establishing the means to account for funds during budget execution.
(b) Conducting long-range and mobilization planning for IG activities in the command or State.
(c) Forwarding issues that the command cannot resolve locally upwards through IG technical channels (if the com-
mander chooses not to use command channels).
(d) Participating in the staff coordination process for policy and other procedural documents by pointing out areas
of inconsistency or conflict but without concurring or nonconcurring with the document (IGs use the terms “reviewed”
or “reviewed with comment” in the staffing process) (see para 1–7j, below).
(e) Cooperating and coordinating with the local internal review and audit compliance offices in connection with the
performance of any inspection or investigation to preclude duplication of effort and to obtain audit reports and other
information as required.
(10) Reporting any questionable intelligence activities to DAIG’s Intelligence Oversight Division (SAIG – IO) in
accordance with procedure 15, AR 381 – 10.
(11) Inspecting the effectiveness of—and compliance with—the Army’s Voting Assistance Program within the
ACOMs, ASCCs, and DRUs annually, and reporting the results to DAIG’s Inspections Division (SAIG – ID)
not later than 30 November of each year (ACOM, ASCC, and DRU IGs only).
c. Commanding generals/directing authorities and Headquarters, Department of the Army Principal Offi-
cials. Commanding generals/directing authorities and HQDA Principal Officials will—
(1) Ensure that all personnel under their jurisdiction desiring to seek IG assistance are not prohibited from contact-
ing the IG and that they are informed of their right to register complaints with, or request assistance from, an IG
(see para 6–1a, below).
(2) Ensure that persons registering complaints with any IG (including the DODIG and other Service IGs)
are afforded protection from reprisal actions as a result of their contact with the IG (see paras 1 – 12 and 1 –13, below).
(3) Provide, if a senior commander, IG support for installation tenant organizations, installation activities under the
U.S. Army Installation Management Command (IMCOM), the activities of other commands under the senior com-
mander’s operational control, and other Army agencies (written support agreements are not necessary unless the sup-
ported agency requires special or mission-unique support).
(4) Provide, if a commander of a life cycle management command (LCMC), IG support to program
executive officers (PEOs) and program managers (PMs).
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 5
(5) Report directly to TIG through DAIG’s Investigations Division within 2 working days of receipt, when practi-
cable, all allegations of impropriety, or knowledge of such an impropriety, by a general officer, a promotable colonel,
an ARNG colonel with a certificate of eligibility, a member of the civilian SES, and any other Army Civilian employee
of comparable grade or position. Reporting an incident of impropriety during an ongoing criminal or equal opportunity
investigation to the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (USACIDC), or to a higher commander or equal
opportunity officer, does not violate this regulation, but such reports to non-IG authorities does not eliminate the
reporting requirement to TIG or allow commanders to inquire into or to investigate the allegations (see para 7–1l,
below).
(6) Report immediately to TIG the relief for cause of any IG (uniformed or civilian) (see chap 2).
(7) Request concurrence from TIG for the early curtailment of an IG’s assignment, except for those Soldiers re-
lieved for cause (see para 2–5b, below).
(8) Request approval from TIG to use IGs to perform non-IG duties (see para 2–7d, below).
d. The Chief, National Guard Bureau. The CNGB will—
(1) Ensure that the Army IG system and its functions of inspections, assistance, investigations, and teaching and
training are implemented within the ARNG.
(2) Ensure that all personnel under their jurisdiction desiring to seek IG assistance are not prohibited from contact-
ing the IG and that they are informed of their right to register complaints with, or request assistance from, an IG (see
para 6–1a, below).
(3) Ensure that persons registering complaints with any IG (including the DODIG and other Service IGs) are af-
forded protection from reprisal actions as a result of their contact with the IG (see paras 1–12 and 1 – 13, below).
(4) Ensure that State AGs coordinate with IGs regarding the investigation of Army National Guard of the United
States (ARNGUS) personnel action requests that involve matters of Federal interest.
(5) Establish and maintain the National Guard Bureau (NGB) as the senior Joint headquarters with respect to Fed-
eral IGs (Regular Army or ARNGUS on extended active duty in a Title 10 status) assigned or detailed to the NGB
and the Joint Forces Headquarters (JFHQ) of the National Guard within the States.
(6) Assist TIG in executing ARNG Federal IG activities pursuant to 10 USC 7020 and 32 USC 105. The CNGB
also assists TIG in executing this responsibility with regard to the activities of Federal IGs assigned to the NGB or the
JFHQ of the National Guard of the States. TIG retains general authority to direct IG inspections of those ARNG areas
or activities of Federal interest.
(7) Ensure that—
(a) A Regular Army or Air Force commissioned officer in the grade of colonel or lieutenant colonel serves as a
State command IG.
(b) The State command IG is a member of the State AG’s personal staff and works directly for the State AG.
(c) The State AG rates the State command IG and the CNGB is the senior rater.
(8) Ensure that the State AG, or a designated representative of the AG, submits requests for class seats for ARNG
Soldiers directly to the NGB quota manager. Ensure that the NGB quota manager approves the school reservation
after the nomination is approved.
(9) Ensure that only an IG serves as a State command IG or acting State command IG.
(10) Ensure that when an acting IG is approved, the State IG announces the designation of the acting IG by memo-
randum with a courtesy copy provided to TIG. The State IG will also send a memorandum to the acting IG specifying
the extent of the acting IG’s authority to receive and act upon requests for assistance and will identify the IG charged
with supervising the acting IG’s activities. Also ensure that acting IGs do not wear IG insignia.
(11) Ensure that when a State IG is about to complete or curtail an IG detail, and another IG is not readily available
to assume or act in the position of State IG, the next higher level IG in the vertical chain will ensure that an IG is
available to provide technical assistance to the subordinate level IG staff section until another IG is assigned. If no
Regular Army officer is available, then the highest ranking IG (ARNG, Air National Guard (ANG), or Civilian) will
assume duties as acting State IG until a Regular Army officer is assigned. If no qualified IG is available, CNGB will
provide oversight for that State.
(12) Report immediately to TIG the relief for cause of any IG (uniformed or civilian) (see chap 2).
(13) Request concurrence from TIG for the early curtailment of an IG’s assignment, except for those Soldiers re-
lieved for cause (see para 2–5b, below).
(14) Request approval from TIG to use IGs to perform non-IG duties (see para 2–7d, below).
(15) Ensure that when an ARNGUS Soldier requests fourth-year extensions to IG duty, the State AG is the approval
authority. If the assignment manager approves an extension request for an IG detail beyond four years, ensure the
request is forwarded through the IG, NGB, to DAIG’s Operations and Support Division (SAIG – OP) for coordination
and final approval by TIG. The IG, NGB, will notify TIG via DAIG’s Operations and Support Division that a National
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 6
Guard Soldier has been extended for a fourth year. The notification will include a valid MTOE or TDA line and
paragraph number. TIG must approve all other extension requests.
(16) Ensure that through the IG, NGB, Federal IGs assigned or detailed to JFHQs are tasked to assist in a DAIG
investigation of ARNG activities of Federal interest in that State.
(17) Through the IG, NGB, coordinate State AG requests for the investigation of ARNGUS personnel actions that
involve matters of non-Federal interest.
(18) Ensure that State IGs process discrimination complaints made by members of the National Guard on the basis
of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, or sexual orientation are processed under NGB guidance rather than using
the inspector general (IG) assistance function.
(19) Ensure that if a State IG receives an inquiry directly from a member of Congress (MC), the State IG contacts
DAIG’s Assistance Division to confirm that DAIG has not received a parallel complaint from the Office of the Chief
Legislative Liaison (OCLL). When there is an indication that DAIG or OCLL has been contacted, the IG will forward
the completed report through the NGB to DAIG’s Assistance Division. If there is no parallel complaint, the State IG
may respond directly to the MC as is customary in that State for handling congressional replies.
(20) When a State IG staff section selects a member of the ANG, and while working through that State’s ARNG
Federal IG, ensure that—
(a) The ANG IG successfully completes TIGS’s Basic Course in order to work Army IG assistance cases in ac-
cordance with this regulation and to have access to the Inspector General Network (IGNET) and the IGARS database.
(b) The State AG understands that during the temporary absence of the command IG, the State AG may designate
an ANG IG as the acting command IG if he or she is the senior officer.
(c) That ANG personnel working in a State IG staff section will be considered assistant IGs only, despite their
grade, and perform only the functions of an assistant IG. The only exception will be ANG IGs serving as acting
command IGs; these ANG IGs will be considered as IGs for the duration of their temporary duty as the acting com-
mand IG and may lead Army inspections and investigations in accordance with this regulation.
(21) Prescribe procedures for the investigation of ANG matters by Army personnel serving as State IGs, including
the following guidelines:
(a) The State IG staff section may receive and process IGARs from ANG personnel or Family members at the
discretion of the State AG.
(b) The State IGs will not normally inspect ANG units.
(c) The State IGs will request technical support for an investigation required from outside the State by contacting
the CNGB (NGB– IG), 111 South George Mason Drive, Building 2, Arlington, VA 22204.
(22) Ensure that Regular Army or ARNGUS IGs conducting IG investigations or investigative inquiries on ANG
personnel will follow the applicable Air Force or ANG regulations or instructions and investigative procedures.
(23) Ensure that State AGs are aware of their authority to modify the JFHQ TDA to establish IG positions in ac-
cordance with NGB guidelines (see National Guard Regulation (NGR) 10 –2).
(24) Ensure that each ARNG Federal IG submits on 1 October of each calendar year an MTOE or TDA report in
accordance with appendix B, paragraph B–6d, to TIG through DAIG’s Operations and Support Division (SAIG – OP).
(25) Ensure that during State intelligence oversight inspections—
(a) State IGs assigned to a JFHQ provide intelligence oversight for assigned intelligence components and activities
for both the ARNG and the ANG in accordance with DOD directives and manuals.
(b) State IGs assigned to a JFHQ provide intelligence oversight in accordance with U.S. Air Force instructions
governing the role of Air Force IGs in the conduct of intelligence oversight inspections when inspecting intelligence
components and activities of the ANG.
e. Commander, U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, and installation provost marshals. The Commander,
USACIDC, and installation provost marshals will—
(1) Ensure that allegations referred to them from IGs concerning serious criminal misconduct are investigated or
processed as appropriate.
(2) Refer to the appropriate command or State IG for disposition of those allegations not based on criminal
misconduct that come into USACIDC via IG channels.
(3) Share any information with an IG when permitted by law and applicable regulations that may assist in the
completion of an IG investigative inquiry or investigation.
1–5. Records management (recordkeeping) requirements
The records management requirement for all record numbers, associated forms, and reports required by this regulation
are addressed in the Army Records Retention Schedule-Army (RRS– A). Detailed information for all related record
numbers, forms, and reports are located in Army Records Information Management System (ARIMS)/RRS – A at
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 7
https://www.arims.army.mil. If any record numbers, forms, and reports are not current, addressed, and/or published
correctly in ARIMS/RRS – A, see DA Pam 25 – 403 for guidance.
1–6. Statutory authorities
a. Statutory authorities for the Army inspector general system. Statutory authorities applicable to the Army IG
system include—
(1) The statute 10 USC 7014 establishes TIG within the Office of the SECARMY and provides authority for the
SECARMY to assign TIG sole responsibility within HQDA for IG functions.
(2) The statute 10 USC 7020 outlines TIG’s statutory requirements and provides for deputies and assistants for TIG.
(3) The statute 10 USC 7065 provides for the detailing of commissioned officers as IGs.
(4) The statute 10 USC 10149 authorizes the screening of U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) IGs.
(5) The statute 32 USC 315 is the authority for the detailing of commissioned officers and enlisted personnel of the
Regular Army for duty with the ARNGUS.
b. Other statutory authorities bearing directly upon the Army inspector general system. Statutory authorities
bearing directly on the Army IG system include—
(1) Executive Order 12333 provides guidelines and procedures on U.S. intelligence activities.
(2) Section 106, Part 731, Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (5 CFR 731.106) categorizes IG billets as public
trust and high-risk positions requiring periodic background screening.
(3) The statutes 10 USC 615 and 10 USC 14107 provide the basis for pre- and post-promotion board
screening.
(4) The statute 10 USC 1034 provides for lawful protected communications by military personnel to Members of
Congress and IGs and prohibits restrictions from lawfully communicating with an IG or Member of Congress
(MC) as well as retaliatory personnel actions in reprisal for those protected communications.
(5) The statutes 10 USC 1566 and 52 USC 20301 provide for uniformed and overseas citizens the right to submit
absentee ballots for U.S. elections.
(6) The statute 32 USC 105 provides for IG inspections of the ARNGUS on matters of Federal concern.
(7) Public Law 110 – 181 (amended by Public Law 113 –291 and the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
of 2016, section 1072, signed into law on 25 November 2015 but without an assigned public law number as of that
date) requires the regional health command IGs to inspect at least once every two years all housing facilities
occupied by recovering Service members and to provide reports on each inspection of a facility to the post commander
at such facility, the commanding officer of the hospital affiliated with such facility, the surgeon general of the military
department that operates such hospital, and the secretary of the military department concerned. In addition, each re-
gional medical command must post the report on the command’s Internet website.
(8) Public Law 111 – 383, “Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office,” section 1611, requires TIG to treat the
sexual assault prevention and response program as an item of special interest when conducting DAIG-level inspections
of organizations and activities with responsibilities to prevent and respond to sexual assault. Inspection teams must
include at least one member with expertise and knowledge of sexual assault prevention and response policies related
to the specific armed force.
(9) Public Law 106– 386, “Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000,” as amended by the NDAA
Fiscal Year (FY) 13, section 1704, requires IGs to take action not only when receiving trafficking in persons (TIP)
allegations via IG channels but anytime the IG receives “credible information” that TIP is taking place. This statute
also requires IGs to document the complaint or credible information and refer the complaint/credible information to
the appropriate agency for investigation. If the IG refers a TIP allegation involving defense contractors to a law en-
forcement entity, then the IG must also notify the commander/director of the agency that awarded the contract of this
referral. If the law enforcement entity does not find probable cause that TIP occurred, then the IG should decide
whether to refer the allegation to the contracting officer or command for investigation, conduct an IG inquiry/investi-
gation, or take no further action. The IG must document this decision (see paragraph 7–3d).
Section II
Inspector General System
1–7. Inspector general concept and system
a. The inspector general system. The Army IG system is unique in both scope and implementation. Army IGs work
only for their commanders / directing authorities but respond to SECARMY and CSA requirements via TIG, who
serves as the IG system’s proponent. The system complements and supports command channels while providing the
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 8
SECARMY and CSA visibility on systemic issues across the force. This dual window allows the SECARMY and
CSA to address the critical Armywide issues that could adversely affect the Army’s overall readiness.
b. Inspector general attributes. The Army IG system comprises commissioned officers, WOs, NCOs, and Army
Civilians who embrace and exemplify Army Values, the Warrior Ethos, and the Army Civilian Corps Creed. These
IGs hold positions of public trust, so broad experience, strong written and verbal communication skills, and impecca-
ble ethics are key attributes that strengthen and build upon the viability and effectiveness of the Army IG system.
c. Command inspectors general. Each IG staff section assigned to a command or any of the States or territories
contains a commissioned officer or civilian who is designated as the command IG (only Regular Army and Air Force
commissioned officers in the grade of colonel or lieutenant colonel may serve as State command IGs) (see para 2–2b,
below). The command IG leads the IG staff section and works directly for the commander or, in the case of the States,
the State AG. The command IG communicates the commander’s vision, intent, philosophy, and guidance to the other
members of the IG staff section, who in turn execute the four IG functions within the command or State based upon
this guidance. Although this regulation addresses the relationship all IGs share with their commanders or State
AGs in a general sense, the true foundation of the IG system is the relationship forged between the command
IG and the commander.
d. The four inspector general functions.
(1) All IGs serve their commanders and their commands by performing the four IG functions—inspections, assis-
tance, investigations, and teaching and training—for the specific purpose of enhancing the command’s readiness and
warfighting capability. These four functions further allow IGs to provide oversight, insight, and foresight to com-
manders at all levels by watching over Army systems, programs, and functions. IGs use historical trends to provide
predictive analyses that help commanders anticipate and prevent problems that will affect readiness. Specifically, IGs
use the four functions to seek out systemic issues that adversely affect the command and the Army and then inspect
those systemic issues to identify problem areas and make recommendations that directly address the causes of these
problem areas. The two main concepts that bear directly upon and often characterize the execution of these four func-
tions are the IG tenet of confidentiality (see para 1 – 12, below) and the restrictions placed upon the distribution and
use of IG records (see chap 3, below).
(2) IGs function within a decentralized system of Armywide IGs who cooperate and assist each other in executing
these functions on behalf of their respective commands—even though they serve other commands and commanders.
The effective functioning of the IG system depends on the mutual cooperation of all IGs through IG technical channels,
not simply within each particular command or State but throughout the Army as a whole.
(3) All IGs operate within an environment consisting of the commander; the commander’s staff; the command’s
Soldiers, Family members, and Army Civilian employees; retirees; contract employees; and other civilians. These
individuals represent the IG’s constituency on matters of Army interest, and all IGs bolster the chain of command by
performing the four IG functions in support of this constituency.
e. The inspector general and commander relationship.
(1) All IGs extend the eyes, ears, voice, and conscience of their commanders. IGs are responsible for advising their
commanders on the state of their commands and for enhancing the command’s readiness and warfighting capability
by performing the four IG functions. To be effective, all IGs must understand the commander’s goals,
expectations, standards, vision, operating methods, and personality and then adapt the IG system's four functions
to these factors.
(2) The relationship between the command IG and the commander represents the foundation of the Army IG system.
The command IG must be the commander’s confidant—one of the individuals with whom the commander can discuss,
with complete trust, any aspect of the command in times of both war and peace. The command IG must inform the
commander of IG observations, findings, and impressions on all aspects of the command. The commander has a re-
sponsibility to learn and understand the IG concept and system and provide guidance to the command IG on
how to use the IG staff section to serve the command effectively.
(3) The trust and confidence shared between all IGs and their commanders extends beyond the confidential
relationship established by commanders and their staffs. Command IGs and their staff sections must remain solely
under the command and control of the commander to avoid any possibility or perception of external influence on the
staff section’s personnel, budget, and operations. The command IG’s relationship with the commander is one of ex-
traordinary trust and confidence, and the commander will grant the command IG (and all IGs within the IG staff
section) a high degree of independence and unlimited access to information in performing IG duties. To protect this
independent and unique relationship, the command IG is a member of the commander’s personal staff, and
the commander will rate and senior-rate the command IG. In addition, the commander will senior-rate those IGs within
the IG staff section whom the command IG rates. If other IGs within the IG staff section serve as raters, such as branch
chiefs, then the command IG will senior-rate those IGs—military or civilian.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 9
(4) Commanders are responsible for issuing local IG credentials as required. These credentials are essentially letters
of identification in memorandum format that outline the IG’s role and authorities within the command and are only in
effect as long as the individual is assigned as an IG. Only the commander, as the IG’s directing authority, signs these
credentials (see The Assistance and Investigations Guide for an example of a credential memorandum).
f. Role of inspectors general.
(1) All IGs are confidential advisors to, and fact-finders for, the commander. Selfless service is the cardinal attribute
of successful IGs, and all IGs must adhere to—and be advocates of—the Army Values, the Warrior Ethos, and the
Army Civilian Corps Creed. IGs earn respect from everyone in the command for their level of expertise, candor,
credibility, reliability, and trustworthiness. As leaders and role models, IGs are never off the record and must always
be ready to address matters of concern for the commander and the command.
(2) To ensure the effectiveness of the IG system, TIG selects uniformed Army IGs using a nominative process.
TIG, however, empowers command IGs to select Civilian IGs through normal personnel recruitment procedures at
the local level (see chap 2 and app B, below).
(3) IGs have both formal and informal roles within the command. The formal role occurs when IGs perform the
four IG functions as outlined in this regulation and in IG doctrine. IGs also perform an informal role by advising the
commander and subordinate commanders on matters affecting the command's immediate readiness. IGs circulate
throughout the command and observe and report informally (often verbally) to the commander on matters that concern
the commander in real time. As a result, IGs are able to identify potential obstacles to readiness that require prompt
action by the commander. Written reports on such matters are often not practical, since the commander will require
some feedback quickly in order to take effective action. When IGs provide such informal feedback to the commander
or subordinate commanders, they must also capture that information in the IGARS database as a standard IGAR and
code it as "Assistance."
(4) IGs must maintain a clear distinction between being an extension of the commander and their sworn duty to
serve as fair, impartial, and objective fact-finders and problem-solvers. At the same time, they must also be sufficiently
independent so that those individuals requesting IG assistance will continue to do so—even when the complainant
feels that the commander may be part of the problem. Commanders must understand this distinction for their IGs to
be effective.
(5) IGs must continuously work through and with the chain of command if the IG system is to be viable, effective,
and relevant. The IG system must reinforce and bolster the chain of command at all times without undermining
it. Therefore, IGs have the responsibility, unless directed otherwise by their commanders, to share verbally and in
writing—but without direct attribution—any observations, findings, trends, and assistance requests with subordinate
commanders to whom the observations or findings apply. When speaking with subordinate commanders, IGs must
not violate the IG tenet of confidentiality (see para 1 – 12, below) by attributing the information to its source unless the
individual who provided the information agrees to the release of his or her identity or if the IG is referring the matter
to the commander for action. Subordinate commanders are not entitled to the same confidential IG information that
the IG’s commander / directing authority may receive. However, if the IG’s commander wants to share confidential
IG information with a subordinate commander or anyone else outside the IG-commander relationship (such as the
chief of staff or command sergeant major (CSM)), he or she may do so but must contact TIG for approval if
the information pertains to investigations.
g. Assignment of inspectors general. IGs are assigned to commands, agencies, activities, centers, communities, in-
stallations, and States in accordance with established authorization documents (the modified table of organization and
equipment (MTOE) and the table of distribution and allowances (TDA)). General officers who are commanders and
SES Civilians in lead director positions will have an assigned command IG on their personal staffs complete with an
IG staff section. Exceptions to this requirement require TIG approval. The first command echelon that normally has
an assigned command IG is the division headquarters. As a result, the division IG staff section represents the founda-
tion of the Army IG system’s organizational structure. Command IG assignments move upward from the division to
the corps, reserve command, State, ACOM, ASCC, and DRU levels. Separate brigades commanded by a general
officer will usually have a command IG assigned to the commander’s personal staff complete with an IG staff section.
IGs assigned to a senior commander augmentation TDA but who work in a senior commander’s IG staff section will
work for, and report to, the command IG and the senior commander. Commanders will determine the size of their IG
staff sections in accordance with AR 71 – 32 and other applicable regulations (see para 2 – 1 and app B, below).
h. The inspector general’s sphere of activity. The IG’s sphere of activity includes everything for which the
commander is responsible and over which the commander or State AG has Federal authority. IGs must be fully aware
of this sphere of activity when determining jurisdiction of IGARs within the IG system. The IG is responsible for
IGARs from within the IG’s sphere of activity. Generally, if the IG’s commander is responsible for resolving the
issues or allegations involved because they reside in the commander’s area of responsibility, then that commander’s
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 10
IG is responsible for the IGAR. For example, if the complainant is from one command and the subject of the allegation
is from another command, then the IG of the commander responsible for resolving the allegation (normally
the commander of the subject’s command) is the responsible IG and is also the IG OOR for the IGAR. The ACOM,
ASCC, and DRU command IGs will resolve all jurisdictional issues. When more than one ACOM, ASCC, or DRU is
involved, DAIG’s Assistance Division (SAIG – AC) will resolve the jurisdictional issue. When the matter contains
classified material or relates to intelligence oversight, sensitive activities, or SAPs, DAIG’s Intelligence Oversight
Division (SAIG – IO) will resolve the jurisdictional issue. Due to potential security classification concerns that the
complainant may not state, the receiving command IG must coordinate with the appropriate command IG if a matter
involves sensitive activities, SAPs, special operations, or U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM)
units or personnel prior to entering any information into IGARS in order to avoid security classification issues (for
example, coordinate with the INSCOM or U.S. Army Special Operations Command (USASOC) IGs on all matters
related to their personnel and units). IGs will still provide assistance on an area basis and attempt to resolve all IGARs,
even those IGARs submitted from personnel outside the IG’s sphere of activity as long as the IGAR is a matter of
Army interest and does not create a jurisdictional conflict with another command’s IG. For further guidance on the
appropriate sphere of activity of ARNGUS Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Soldiers detailed as IGs with regard to
matters related to the ARNGUS, contact Chief, National Guard Bureau (NGB– IG), 111 South George Mason
Drive, Building 2, Arlington, VA 22204.
i. Inspector general technical channels.
(1) IGs may request, and are normally expected to provide, assistance to others within the IG system using IG
technical channels. Technical channels guarantee the effective functioning and value of the IG system to each IG’s
command and to the Army as a whole. For example, when a proponent cannot implement or correct a verified
inspection finding at a particular IG’s level of command, the IG can use IG technical channels to hand off the finding
to the next higher headquarters (unless the commander prefers to handle the matter through command channels). IGs
may also refer issues and allegations to other IG staff sections either as an OOR or OOI (OOI referrals only apply to
vertical echelons of command). The receiving IG staff section must agree to accept the referral (DAIG’s Assistance
Division will adjudicate any problems associated with referrals of this nature). IGs must be prepared to assist others
within the IG system as well as other IGs outside the Army IG system.
(2) A vertical command relationship for IGs does not exist; IGs work for their commanders and not for other IGs.
IG technical channels are for mutual assistance and information-sharing purposes, and IGs within the vertical
command chain are not to use IG technical channels to task or otherwise interfere with a subordinate
command’s commander-IG relationship. Only TIG has the authority to reach down to a lower echelon command IG
and task that IG to inspect, assist, investigate, or produce information and records. In these cases, TIG will almost
always work through the IG's directing authority.
(3) Higher echelon IGs should normally coordinate visits through the lower echelon IG as a matter of professional
courtesy and should not bypass a lower echelon IG staff section to visit a subordinate command directly.
j. Inspectors general and command policy. IGs have an obligation to assist commanders and their staffs in devel-
oping effective policies to enhance the readiness of the organization and the Army as an institution. However, IGs
will not establish command policy except as provided by TIG through this regulation and AR 1 – 201. In fact, IGs have
no directive authority outside IG channels beyond the authority normally associated with their grade. Additional au-
thority must come from the IG’s commander/directing authority. IGs have no authority to inspect or investigate with-
out the written permission of the commander/directing authority. Even so, this regulation authorizes all IGs to provide
assistance, conduct investigative inquiries, and teach and train without the commander’s written permission.
(1) Even though IGs have no directive authority outside the IG system, the restriction against establishing command
policy does not preclude IG involvement in the policy formulation and staffing process. IGs must review all staffing
actions associated with policy development against Armywide trends, other existing policies, IG inspection trends,
and so forth. Additionally, IGs must point out conflicts in regulatory and/or policy guidance and comment on those
policies and procedures to ensure consistency and accuracy. Many IG products routinely influence the development
or refinement of Army policy, most notably the recommendations that appear in IG inspection reports.
(2) In an effort to avoid a perceived lack of impartiality, IGs at the ACOM, ASCC, and DRU levels and below will
not overtly concur or non-concur with draft or emerging policies to avoid the perception that an IG may have a personal
stake in that policy. If an IG later inspects or investigates against a standard with which he or she overtly concurred,
and that standard is later found to have flaws, members of the command may view any actions by the IG to remedy
that policy as an effort to cover up the IG’s involvement in that standard’s formulation. Instead, IGs may state, "This
draft policy conflicts with AR 600 – 20. Have you considered the procedures specified in AR 600 – 9? The policy is
difficult to understand and interpret as written." The IG’s final response will be “reviewed with comments” or a similar
statement, but the IG will avoid the terms "concur" or "nonconcur."
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 11
(3) An exception to the use of “concur” or “nonconcur” exists only for DAIG. As a forward-operating agency of
the HQDA staff, DAIG is required to take specific positions on Army, DOD, and other policies as part of the HQDA
staffing process. DAIG will also take overt positions on behalf of IGs in the field for those inspection hand-offs sent
to DAIG’s Analysis and Inspections Follow-Up Branch as part of inspection report recommendations for changes to
Army policy. This approach to staffing does not affect the perceived impartiality of DAIG, since all HQDA staff
elements are required by Title 10, U.S. Code, to provide the policy necessary to organize, train, equip, and oversee
the readiness of the Army.
k. Office space. The IG office space should not be located in or next to the headquarters or in a remote location that
is not readily accessible to non-IGs. The ideal location is in a heavily trafficked area where Soldiers, Civilians, and
others can blend in and not appear conspicuous when entering the IG office, which reinforces confidentiality and
reduces the potential for reprisal. Signs or directions indicating the location of the IG office should be placed in the
building entrance or directory so that individuals may find the office in the least conspicuous manner. Additionally,
IGs cannot share open office space with non-IGs or work in open-air cubicles among non-IGs. This requirement stems
from the potential breach of confidentiality when complainants visit the staff section’s office and because of the po-
tential for non-IGs to overhear confidential IG telephone conversations, view IG information on desks and computer
screens, and overhear conversations between and among IGs. IG staff sections must have the ability to secure under
lock and key all hard copy IG records. Only IGs will have keys to these containers; custodians or other personnel will
not maintain back-up keys for storage containers that contain IG records. Command IGs should enforce a clean-desk
policy to ensure that IG records are not left in the open for non-IGs to view. Commands must accommodate
these IG office space requirements within resource constraints.
1–8. Inspector general access to information
a. Access to documents, records, evidence, and other data. No officer, employee, Servicemember, or DOD compo-
nent may deny IGs access to all documents, records, and evidentiary materials needed to discharge their duties, to
include data stored in electronic repositories, except where law or statute authorizes the non-disclosure of records
and/or documents. Some examples of information accessible to all IGs are classified documents; records of board
proceedings; emails; acquisition information; medical records; medical quality assurance records; drug and alcohol
records; financial records; evaluation reports; security dossiers; criminal investigation reports (as permitted by law
and applicable regulations); copies of an individual’s restricted fiche (after compliance with AR 600 – 8 – 104); financial
disclosure statements; and open-source information, such as social media and online blogs. This authority includes
direct access to pertinent extracts as allowed by applicable regulations.
b. Access to medical records. When accessing medical records, IGs must remain aware that health care information
is sensitive medical information and protected by Public Law 104 – 191, the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act (HIPAA). While IGs are not covered entities under HIPAA, they must maintain healthcare infor-
mation in a safe, secure, and confidential manner. Re-disclosure is prohibited except where permitted by the PA.
c. Restricted access. IGs are not authorized access to material subject to the attorney-client privilege or any other
legally recognized privilege (see para 7–1h, below).
d. Access to classified or sensitive information. Inspectors general are also authorized access to classified
or sensitive information. However, the IG must present proof of an appropriate level security clearance or special
access to review classified documents. The IG’s security clearance may be included on the IG’s locally produced
credentials. An IG must also present sufficient justification to the record holder to obtain sensitive records. If com-
partmentalization or classification restrictions preclude immediate access to information required by an IG, the deny-
ing commander will immediately report the situation to the appropriate access-control authority and obtain an access-
eligibility determination. If this authority does not grant access to the information, the IG will notify the commander
and TIG of the situation. The notice to TIG will include the location, date, and command; scope of the assistance
inquiry, inspection, or investigation; who denied access; who verified denial and approved denial; and the reason
access was denied.
1–9. The Inspector General
a. The Inspector General as confidential advisor to the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff, Army. The
Inspector General is responsible to the SECARMY and serves as the SECARMY’s confidential advisor and
representative. TIG is responsive to the CSA and also serves as the CSA’s confidential advisor and representative.
The Inspector General leads and provides headquarters management of the U.S. Army Inspector General
Agency (USAIGA), establishes policy and doctrine for the IG system, and maintains the viability and integrity of the
IG system (see para 1–4a, above). The Inspector General has the authority to direct command and State IGs
to conduct inspections, assistance inquiries, and investigations.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 12
b. The Inspector General and the inspector general system. The IG system is not a typical “stovepipe” system,
because IGs work for their respective commanders. However, all IGs working within the IG system must adhere to
IG policy, doctrine, and other mandated procedures as established and promulgated by TIG. Through this policy over-
sight and certification authority, TIG maintains and safeguards the viability and integrity of the IG system.
c. Office of The Inspector General, U.S. Army. The OTIG is the secretariat-level IG staff office that coordinates IG
activities on behalf of the SECARMY. The OTIG includes TIG; Deputy, The Inspector General (DTIG); the Director
of Army Inspections; a sergeant major; an executive officer; executive assistants; and administrative support person-
nel.
d. United States Army Inspector General Agency. The USAIGA is a field operating agency of the OTIG. The agency
comprises operational and support divisions that perform the IG functions on behalf of the SECARMY and CSA and
the overall Department of the Army.
e. Department of the Army Inspector General. The term DAIG is used when referring to both the OTIG
and USAIGA as one entity.
1–10. Inspector general guidelines for U.S. Army Reserve matters
The U.S. Army Reserve Command (USARC) IG staff section is the senior IG staff section in the USAR.
The commanding general of USARC is a unique position; the incumbent serves both as a member of the DA staff as
the Chief, Army Reserve, and as the commanding general of USARC. Accordingly, the USARC IG staff section will
report directly to DAIG on IGARs and command products concerning nonsenior officials on behalf of the office of
the Chief, Army Reserve.
1–11. Inspector general guidelines for Army National Guard matters
a. Any Regular Army officer has the authority to inspect and perform other IG functions on those aspects of the
NG having a Federal interest.
b. Pursuant to 10 USC 7020 and 32 USC 105, TIG is responsible to the SECARMY and CSA for supervising
Federal IG (Regular Army or ARNGUS on extended active duty in a Title 10 status) activities with regard to the NG.
The ACOM, ASCC, DRU, and subordinate commanders assist TIG in executing this responsibility with regard to the
activities of Federal IGs assigned to those commands.
c. The ACOM, ASCC, and DRU commanders; subordinate commanders; and the CNGB, may, in accordance with
AR 10 –87 or other applicable regulations or directives, direct IG inspections of ARNGUS units, activities, and func-
tions whose areas or activities have a Federal interest. The policies contained in this regulation apply to the conduct
of those inspections. Inspections by Federal IGs assigned to an ACOM, ASCC, DRU, a subordinate command,
the NGB, or a NG JFHQ does not preclude DAIG or another appropriate authority from inspecting the same
units, functions, or activities. In appropriate cases, as determined by TIG, responsibility to conduct an inspection of
the ARNG by Federal IGs in particular cases will be transferred to DAIG.
1–12. Inspectors general, the U.S. Army Installation Management Command, and geographic
support
IGs assigned to the senior commander on an installation have a unique relationship with the IMCOM, because these
IGs support their commander (their directing authority) and the IMCOM garrison commander / manager. The senior
commander’s command IG is the overall command IG for the installation. These command IGs work solely for the
senior commander. However, in situations where the IMCOM commander (or an IMCOM regional director or garrison
commander) must be made aware of IG information pertinent to IMCOM activities on the installation, the IG, with
the approval of the senior commander, may provide confidential IG information to the IMCOM commander, regional
director, or garrison commander / manager through the IMCOM organization’s IG. The IG may contact DAIG’s Legal
Division for advice on the release of such information. With the approval of the senior commander, the IG will notify
the IMCOM IG of all allegations against the IMCOM garrison commander / manager, deputy garrison commander /
manager, or garrison CSM. The senior command IG should consider referring matters to the IMCOM IG that contain
systemic issues for which IMCOM is the proponent and that are beyond the authority of the garrison commander /
manager to resolve. Likewise, other tenant units that lack an organic, geographically co-located IG will receive support
from the senior commander’s command IG except for those specific areas defined under training readiness authority
or that are relevant only to the larger parent command. In these cases, the parent command’s IG will provide support
and keep the senior commander’s IG informed on matters that may affect installation activities.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 13
Section III
Confidentiality
1–13. Confidentiality
a. The inspector general tenet of confidentiality. All IGs have a duty to protect to the maximum extent possible the
personal identity of a complainant, witness, or any other individual providing information to the IG, particularly when
the individual specifically requests confidentiality. Persons who ask the IG for help; make a complaint; provide
testimony, information, or evidence as part of an IG inspection or investigation; or otherwise interact with an IG often
do so because they have an expectation of confidentiality. Their expectation often centers on the safeguarding of the
individual’s personal identity and the nature of the individual’s contact with the IG. Although confidentiality and the
measures necessary to protect it will vary from circumstance to circumstance, the IG always treats confidentiality
carefully and as a priority. While IGs will never promise confidentiality, IGs will endeavor to maintain confidentiality
as a matter of primary importance and as a key to the IG system’s viability and success.
b. Confidentiality as a core concept. Confidentiality and discretion are core concepts for IGs, though IGs do not
have a legal privilege of confidentiality. Rather, IG confidentiality results from the IG’s special relationship with the
commander, the deliberative process, protection in both the FOIA and the PA, and as a necessary incident to the
protections of 10 USC 1034. The information that IGs gather such as testimony, the contents of certain conversations
with persons seeking IG assistance, or information offered when participating in an IG sensing session represent offi-
cial, nonpublic government information.
c. Inspectors general and the chain of command. Confidential communications between an IG and a commander
are critical to ensure an open, candid exchange of command information. Since IGs advise commanders and only offer
recommendations, all IG advice on command matters is inherently pre-decisional. Normally, pre-decisional matters
contained in IG records may be protected from release under the FOIA. Facts are typically not considered pre-deci-
sional.
(1) IGs not only serve their immediate commanders but also serve as extensions of all commanders in the chain of
command and the Army as an institution. IGs must remember, however, that they are members of their directing
authority’s personal staff and may share IG information with that authority. Release of confidential IG information to
other staff officers and subordinate commanders must follow the procedures outlined in this regulation. Since aide-
de-camps and executive officers often have direct access to their commander’s email, IGs must take precautions when
sending email messages to their directing authorities that contain confidential IG information. IGs should limit to the
greatest degree possible the email transmission of confidential IG information to their directing authorities. In circum-
stances where email is the most viable communications option, IGs must brief in advance aide-de-camps, executive
officers, and others with access to the directing authority’s email on the confidential nature of IG information and their
responsibilities for keeping that information confidential.
(2) The information IGs gather belongs to the Army, and IGs may provide some of that information without attrib-
ution, verbally or in writing as required, to the commanders and staff members who have an official need-to-know the
information and who use it in the performance of their official duties. Therefore, IGs must protect the confidentiality
of all information gathered in the performance of IG duties as a matter of the highest priority.
d. Protected communications with inspectors general. The statute 10 USC 1034, as implemented in DODD 7050.06
and this regulation, states that IGs treat the information they receive in official communications as confidential and
with the utmost discretion, particularly the names of complainants or witnesses who specifically request the protection
of their identities. The law provides redress to persons who suffer reprisal as a result of the intentional or inadvertent
release of IG communications to third parties. The protection of 10 USC 1034 is significant because it covers any
communication with an IG. The scope of protections afforded in this act signals to IGs that communications with an
IG must be treated with greater discretion than other forms of non-public government information or other pre-deci-
sional information.
e. Confidentiality and the inspector general functions. The degree of confidentiality and the specific information
kept confidential vary according to each of the three main IG functions of inspections, assistance, and investigations
(see fig 1 –1).
(1) Inspections. The primary purpose of an IG inspection is to resolve systemic issues by determining their root
causes and not to assign personal or collective blame. IGs will not normally reveal the names of individuals or units
that provide information during the course of an inspection. When IGs prepare inspection reports, they must ensure
that they protect the identity of those individuals and units that provided information during an inspection. An IG must
recognize that the commander will not be the only one to view the final report. The report may list the units or agencies
visited in an appendix but in no way will connect a finding or any other information to a specific source such as a
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 14
person or unit. This requirement allows IGs at the lowest level to disseminate the report widely without revealing
confidential IG information so that the command may implement the recommendations. When IGs conduct
general, compliance-oriented inspections, the report becomes much more restrictive, because the IG findings are
directly linked to a specific unit and that unit’s commander. Therefore, only the inspected commander and the directing
authority can receive copies of the report. Further release of the report requires adherence to the procedures for the
release of confidential IG information as outlined in this regulation. IG inspection teams conducting out-briefings of
inspected units may reveal an information source at the team leader’s discretion if revealing that source promotes best
business practices or highlights the proper way to do something. An IG who opts to reveal such information must use
extreme discretion when doing so and then must qualify that release by explaining to the unit commander that he or
she cannot use the IG information to reward, punish, or evaluate the person or unit.
(2) Assistance. When a person seeks assistance from the IG, the IG must often reveal the person’s identity to obtain
the help needed to resolve the issue. The IG will inform the person of that necessity, and the IG file and case notes
will reflect that notification. If the individual does not consent to the release of his or her identity to resolve the matter,
the IG may not be able to assist fully that person and must inform him or her accordingly.
(3) Investigations and investigative inquiries. When a person provides information about an impropriety or wrong-
doing, the IG may disclose the complainant’s identity to another IG; the local, supporting legal advisor; and/or the
directing authority without the complainant’s consent unless the IG determines that such disclosure is unnecessary or
prohibited during the course of an investigative inquiry or investigation. The IG must not disclose further the com-
plainant’s identity without the complainant’s consent unless the IG determines that such disclosure is unavoidable or
mandated by a higher authority during the course of an investigative inquiry or investigation. If the IG determines that
disclosure is unavoidable, the IG will inform the person prior to disclosure. If the person objects, the IG will consult
with the local legal office before proceeding. The IG will include in the record and case notes all efforts to notify the
person and the circumstances of disclosing the person’s name.
f. Requests for anonymity. When someone requests anonymity, the IG will take additional measures to protect the
person’s identity, such as not using the person’s name as a file identifier or as a means to retrieve a file. The file must
prominently state the request for anonymity, and the IG will minimize using the person’s name in any IG file or record.
The IG can avoid compromising anonymity by simply referring to the person as complainant, witness, or similar
title—but not by name. For allegations referred to the command, the requirement for the IG to provide relevant docu-
mentary evidence received from the complainant to the command investigator means that granting a request for ano-
nymity may not be possible. The command investigator will have all of the relevant supporting documents provided
by the complainant with the exception of DA Form 1559 (Inspector General Action Request) and any DA Form 1559
continuation sheet(s). For allegations of statutory whistleblower reprisal, the complainant must provide his or her
identity; IGs will not grant anonymity in these cases (see paras 7–3b and 7–3d, below). For DOD Hotline referrals,
access will be restricted to the Hotline information use disclaimer as it appears on the bottom of each DOD Hotline
referral document.
g. The triangle of confidentiality. A helpful way to understand confidentiality is through the model known as the
triangle of confidentiality (see fig 1 – 1, below). The triangle contains three parties—the commander, the complainant
(or person providing information to an IG), and the IG—and is an extension of the commander-IG relationship. In
general, IGs may share the most sensitive, attributable IG information within the triangle, although the IG is under no
obligation to reveal sources if they are not pertinent to the issues or topics under consideration. The third person in the
triangle—the complainant or person providing information to the IG—is normally allowed to know only those things
that directly affect him or her and no more.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 15
Figure 1–1. Triangle of confidentiality
(1) The IG must distinguish between who stands in the roles of the commander and the complainant. The
commander is most often the immediate commander, the IG’s directing authority. However, if a complaint is about
the conduct of that commander, an IG will not reveal confidential IG information to that commander regarding
the complaint. In such circumstances, IGs will report that information either to a higher level IG; a higher
level commander; or, in the case of senior officials, to DAIG’s Investigations Division.
(2) Certain staff members of either the commander or subordinate commanders may enter into the triangle tempo-
rarily if, at the discretion of the IG, they need to know confidential IG information to perform their duties. For example,
a finance office requires the name and identification number of a Soldier seeking assistance with a pay problem.
However, even this necessary release of IG information to the finance office represents a confidentiality challenge.
Identifying this Soldier in order to correct the pay problem also reveals the fact that the Soldier sought IG assistance.
Therefore, IGs must inform persons seeking IG assistance that the IG might have to release information about the case
to certain officials.
(3) The IG may consult with staff experts to determine standards for use in inspections, assistance inquiries, and
investigations. In some cases, the extent of these consultations may require the IG to administer the oath to the staff
member as a temporary assistant IG. In other cases, the IG may simply ask for assistance. IGs must exercise discretion
in dealing with the other staff members. With the exception of the staff judge advocate (SJA) and the attorneys in the
Office of the SJA (OSJA), staff members generally do not have a need-to-know IG information. While all staff mem-
bers must comply with obligations regarding non-public government information and classified information, they are
under no special obligation to protect information like the attorneys or IGs as described in this section.
(4) The SJA and the attorneys in the OSJA provide legal advice to the commander, subordinate commanders, and
their respective staff members. The SJA and the OSJA’s attorneys are also the IG’s immediate legal advisors;
for this reason, SJAs are allowed into the triangle of confidentiality on a routine basis. IGs can reveal confidential IG
information to the SJA and the OSJA’s attorneys (except for those OSJA attorneys representing individual military
and civilian clients) to seek legal advice or to provide more complete advice to the commander. The attorney-client
privilege exists between the attorney working on behalf of the Army and the Army as an institution and does not exist
with the commander personally, except to the extent that the commander represents the Army. Certain military and
government civilian attorneys, such as legal assistance attorneys and Trial Defense Service attorneys, may legally
form attorney-client relationships with individual Soldiers, civilian employees, and authorized dependents. IGs must
exercise discretion when communicating with these attorneys as the attorney may not need to be part of—or enter
into—the triangle of confidentiality. The legal assistance attorneys and Trial Defense Service counsel, for example,
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 16
may represent a military or civilian complainant and seek to communicate with an IG for assistance on matters related
to their client’s situation. In this situation, these attorneys may provide information that becomes subject to IG confi-
dentiality.
(5) Soldiers and Civilians are responsible for maintaining confidentiality after their IG detail or tour. Command IGs
will personally out-brief all departing IGs and assistant IGs who are not continuing IG duty elsewhere in order to
remind them of the confidentiality requirement and to ensure that these individuals do not take with them—intention-
ally or accidentally—hard copy or electronic versions of IG records. Emails relating to IG duty fall into this category.
The intent is that IGs upload all pertinent IG records into IGARS (including relevant emails that are printed and
scanned as PDF files) and then properly destroy the electronic and hard copy versions. If former IGs deem it necessary
to keep emails related to their IG duty, then they must safeguard, to the best of their ability, any confidential email
files throughout their careers until properly deleted or destroyed. Temporary assistant and acting IGs will also receive
an out-briefing prior to departing from their temporary duty as IGs; the supervising IG or the command IG may con-
duct these out-briefings. Command IGs will ensure that a written memorandum for record documenting the out-brief-
ing remains on file in the IG office for three years. Former IGs who fail to safeguard properly sensitive IG data are
subject to disciplinary action in accordance with the provisions of this regulation. Command IGs, however, may con-
tact former IGs who were assigned to the same command to address IG-related matters of which they had personal
knowledge.
1–14. Prohibited activity and punitive provisions
a. Prohibition on restricting lawful communication with an inspector general; Member of Congress; or a member
of an audit, inspection, or law enforcement organization within the Department of Defense. Persons subject to this
regulation will not restrict anyone in any manner from lawfully communicating with those individuals mentioned
above. This prohibition includes communications with a DODIG and the IGs of other Services and Federal agencies.
For appropriated fund civilians, the prohibition further includes disclosures to the special counsel or another employee
designated by the head of the agency to receive such disclosures (see 5 USC 2302). For nonappropriated fund
(NAF) employees, the prohibition includes disclosures to any civilian employee or member of the Armed Forces
designated by law or by the Secretary of Defense to receive such disclosures (see 10 USC 1587).
b. Prohibitions against reprisal.
(1) Civilian whistleblower. Persons subject to this regulation will not take (or threaten to take) an unfavorable per-
sonnel action or withhold (or threaten to withhold) a favorable personnel action with respect to any employee or
applicant for employment as reprisal for communications protected by 5 USC 2302(b)(8) or 10 USC 1587
as applicable.
(2) Military whistleblower. Persons subject to this regulation will not take (or threaten to take) an unfavorable
personnel action or withhold (or threaten to withhold) a favorable personnel action with respect to a member of the
armed forces for making or preparing a (lawful) protected communication. Lawful communications are those com-
munications made to an IG; MC; member of a DOD audit, inspection, or investigation organization; law enforcement
organization; or any other person or organization (including any person or organization in the chain of command
starting at the immediate supervisor level) designated under regulations or other established administrative procedures
(such as the equal opportunity advisor or safety officer) to receive such communications. (See DODD 7050.06 for the
definition of “chain of command” as it applies to military whistleblower reprisal matters.) The term “lawful commu-
nication” encompasses information that the Soldier reasonably believes provides evidence of a violation of law or
regulation, including a law or regulation prohibiting sexual harassment or unlawful discrimination, gross mismanage-
ment, a gross waste of funds or other resources, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public
health or safety. Refer to the current version of DODD 7050.06 for up-to-date guidance on identifying a protected
communication.
c. Prohibition against making an unlawful communication with an inspector general, Member of Congress, or the
Office of Special Counsel. Persons subject to this regulation will not knowingly make an unlawful communication
with an IG, MC, or the Office of Special Counsel (OSC). An unlawful communication is a false official statement
under Article 107, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ, Art. 107). This prohibition also applies to communica-
tions with a DODIG and the IGs of other Services and Federal entities.
d. Persons subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Persons subject to the UCMJ who violate the above
prohibitions are subject to punishment under UCMJ, Art. 92. They are also subject to adverse administrative action
authorized by the United States Code or Federal regulations.
e. Persons not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Any Army Civilian employees who violate the
above prohibitions are subject to disciplinary action or criminal prosecution authorized by the United States Code or
Federal regulations.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 17
f. Reporting prohibited actions. Persons who believe an action prohibited by paragraphs 1–13a through c, above,
has occurred will report the circumstances to the chain of command or to the local IG. Alternatively, persons who
believe a prohibited action has occurred may report the circumstances to a higher headquarters IG. For guidance to
IGs on resolving reprisal cases, see paragraphs 7–3b and c, below.
Chapter 2
Inspector General Personnel
2–1. Inspector general positions
a. Command positions. Command IG positions are designated in approved MTOEs and TDAs. A command IG
position is required on each MTOE or TDA in which a general officer serves as the commander; the general officer
will in turn serve as the command IG’s directing authority (see the definition of directing authority in the glossary).
HQDA-appointed SES Civilians serving as a lead director will have a command IG. Separate brigades or similarly
sized organizations commanded by general officers will normally have a command IG. The IG standards of grade are
in accordance with DA Pam 611 – 21 for all MTOEs and TDAs.
b. Staff sections. Each command IG will have an accompanying IG staff section based upon approved MTOEs and
TDAs. Divisions, corps, and ASCCs have established MTOEs for IG staff sections. The first echelon of command in
which an IG staff section appears is at the division level, making the division IG staff section the foundation of IG
force structure. Commanders may supplement these MTOE structures with TDA positions as required using DAIG’s
manpower determination model. All members of an IG staff section, to include administrative support personnel, will
be assigned to MTOE or TDA positions. Commanders will designate IG positions in approved MTOEs and TDAs in
coordination with DAIG’s Operations and Support Division (SAIG – OP) to enable TIG, as the proponent of the IG
system, to maintain visibility of IG force structure and to advise commanders on IG force structure issues. Any and
all modifications to an IG staff section’s table of organization and equipment (TOE), MTOE, and TDA requires
TIG’s approval.
c. Augmentation. When a brigade combat team is deploying, the home station directing authority may augment the
in theater directing authority’s IG staff section with a qualified IG from the home station IG staff section.
The augmenting IG will work for the command IG in theater and not for the brigade combat team or any other brigade
commander.
d. Establishing tables of distribution and allowances. Commanders reporting directly to HQDA have the authority
to establish IG positions in TDAs (see AR 614 – 100). All commanders establishing TDAs for IG staff sections may
use DAIG’s manpower determination model, available from DAIG’s Operations and Support Division.
e. Personnel reporting requirement. Each command IG will submit by 1 October of each calendar year an MTOE
or TDA report in accordance with paragraph B–6d, to TIG through DAIG’s Operations and Support Division.
f. Contractors. IG duty is inherently governmental. Contractors cannot and will not serve as IGs. The only excep-
tions are for contract personnel performing administrative functions, such as systems administration and the transcrip-
tion of verbatim testimony.
2–2. Inspector general categories
a. Categories of service. The IG system consists of officers, WOs, NCOs, and Civilians serving in one of the
following five categories:
(1) IG.
(2) Assistant IG.
(3) Temporary assistant IG.
(4) Acting IG.
(5) Administrative support staff members (includes contract personnel performing administrative functions).
b. Title and baseline requirements. TIG establishes the prerequisites for IG service. Persons serving as IGs, assistant
IGs, temporary assistant IGs, and acting IGs carry the title of “inspector general.” The IG (commissioned officer or
Department of the Army Civilian (DAC)) who serves as the commander’s IG and the chief of an IG staff section
carries the title of “Command IG.” All persons who fall into these five IG categories must possess or be able to obtain
and maintain a secret level security clearance (see paras B–4a(7) and B– 5). Some IG positions may require a top
secret level clearance. Only TIG may make exceptions to this security clearance requirement as necessary. Table 2 – 1
lists the five IG categories and the actions each category of IG performs.
c. Exceptions to inspector general personnel policy. TIG is the sole authority to approve requests for exceptions to
policy concerning grade qualifications for all IG categories and to approve requests for a change in IG status. Submit
all exceptions through DAIG’s Operations and Support Division (SAIG – OP) to TIG on unit letterhead. The request
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 18
must reference the affected paragraph in AR 20 – 1, the reason for the exception, the requested duration for the excep-
tion, and a description of the impact if not approved. If the request is to grant additional authorities to an individual,
such as allowing an assistant IG to lead an investigation, the request must clearly state why the designated individual
is singularly qualified to merit the exception. Include the individual’s experience level and TIGS’s basic course grad-
uation date. The commander/directing authority must sign the memorandum, or TIG will not consider the exception
request.
Table 2–1
Inspector general categories of service —Continued
Category IG Assistant IG Temporary as-
sistant IG
Acting IG Administrative support person
Grade/eligi-
bility
-Commissioned of-
ficers (captains
with successful
company com-
mand and above or
with successful key
developmental
time)
-Commissioned
WOs in the grade
of CW3 and above
-DACs in t h e
grade of general
schedule
11 (GS –11) and
above (includes
equivalent General
Government (GG)
grades)
-Promotable
staff sergeants
and above
-Civilians i n
t h e g r a d e o f
GS –9
(includes equiv-
alent GG grade)
-Commissioned
officers
-WOs
-NCOs
-DACs
-Selected non-
DACs (civilians
from other ser-
vices, and so
forth)
-Commissioned
officers in the
rank of captain
or above (ex-
ceptions ap-
proved by TIG)
-DACs in the
grade of GS –11
and above (in-
cludes equiva-
lent GG grades)
In accordance with MTOE and/or TDA
(contractors may serve in this capacity
as well)
Approval rves uniformed IGs
-Command IG / hir-
ing official ap-
proves DACs with
notice to TIG per
rves uniformed
IGs
-Command IG /
hiring official
approves DACs
with notice to
TIG per
-TIG approves
for more than
180 days
-ACOM, ASCC,
or DRU ap-
proves for
90 to 180 days
-Local com-
mand approves
for fewer than
90 days
-ACOM, ASCC,
or DRU ap-
proves for
R e g u l a r Army
and USAR offic-
ers (or senior
Army forces
commanders in
Joint or com-
batant com-
mands) and
DACs
- State AG ap-
proves for
ARNGUS
- Exceptions by
TIG
Local command approves
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 19
Table 2–1
Inspector general categories of service —Continued
Category IG Assistant IG Temporary as-
sistant IG
Acting IG Administrative support person
Training -TIGS’s basic
course
-TIGS’s advanced
course (optional for
officers/required for
DACs every five
years)
-TIGS’s basic
course
-TIGS’s ad-
vanced course
(optional for
NCOs/required
for DACs every
five years)
-Command
IG
- T I G S ’ s basic
course if duty
exceeds 180
days
-Command or
senior IG
-TIGS’s basic
course on a
space-available
basis
-Command or senior IG
-TIGS’s basic course on a space-
available basis
Take IG
oath
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (except for contract personnel)
Inspections Lead Lead Assist No No (unless approved and graduated
from TIGS’s basic course, then Assist)
Assistance Lead Lead Assist Assistance only
and normally
under the su-
pervision of a
command or
senior IG
No (unless approved and graduated
from TIGS’s basic course, then Assist)
Investiga-
tions or in-
vestigative
inquiries
Lead Assist Assist No No (unless approved and graduated
from TIGS’s basic course, then Assist)
Teaching
and training
Lead Lead Assist Assist No (unless approved and graduated
from TIGS’s basic course, then Assist)
Administer
oaths
Yes Yes (but admin-
isters the IG
oath only to
temporary as-
sistant and act-
ing IGs)
No No No (unless approved and graduated
from TIGS’s basic course)
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 20
Table 2–1
Inspector general categories of service —Continued
Category IG Assistant IG Temporary as-
sistant IG
Acting IG Administrative support person
Tour length -Officers and com-
missioned WOs in
the grade of CW3
and above: 3 years
and/or in accord-
ance with Army as-
signment policies
and Army leader-
ship priorities (4th-
year extensions
approved by com-
mander and as-
signment manager;
all other extensions
approved by as-
signment manager
and TIG); overseas
tours will be in ac-
cordance with AR
614–30
-DACs: indefinitely
-WOs and
NCOs: 3 years
and/or in ac-
cordance with
Army assign-
ment policies
and Army lead-
ership priorities
(4th-year exten-
sion approved
by commander
and assignment
manager; a l l
o t h e r exten-
sions approved
by assignment
manager and
TIG); overseas
tours will be in
accordance with
AR 614–30
-DACs: indefi-
nitely
-Officers, WOs,
and NCOs, in
accordance
with AR
614–100, AR
614–200, and
AR
140–10
-DACs, in ac-
cordance with
the civilian per-
sonnel advisory
center (CPAC)
Specified by the
command
Specified by the command
Wear IG in-
signia
-Officers/WOs
-DACs may wear
one officer IG in-
signia as a lapel
pin
-NCOs
-DACs may
wear one officer
IG insignia as a
lapel pin
Officers, WOs,
and NCOs o nly
if duty exceeds
180 days
No No
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 21
Table 2–1
Inspector general categories of service —Continued
Category IG Assistant IG Temporary as-
sistant IG
Acting IG Administrative support person
Education
goals
-Officers: Captains
Career Course
(captains and
above); military
education level
(MEL) 4 (major
and above except
for ARNG and
USAR); undergrad-
uate degree (re-
quired); master’s
degree is desirable
-WOs: undergradu-
ate degree is desir-
able; senior WO
training course
-DACs in the grade
range of GS –11 to
GS –12: an under-
graduate degree is
desirable
-DACs in the grade
range of GS –13 to
GS –15: a master’s
degree is desirable
-In accordance
with AR 350 –1, ci-
vilians apply for the
Civilian Education
System (CES)
course targeted to
their current grade
or, if applicable, re-
ceive equivalency
credit. The CES
foundation course
is required for all
DACs hired after
30 September
2006
-NCOs: high
school or g e n -
e r a l e d u c a -
t i o n d e g r e e
(required); sen-
ior leader
course; under-
graduate degree
is desirable
-DACs in the
grade range of
GS –9: an un-
dergraduate de-
gree is desirable
-In accordance
with AR 350–1,
DACs apply for
the CES course
targeted to their
current grade or,
if applicable, re-
ceive equiva-
lency credit. The
CES foundation
course is re-
quired for all ci-
vilians hired af-
ter 30 Septem-
ber 2006
The require-
ments for IGs
and assistant
IGs apply for
temporary as-
sistant IGs
whose duty ex-
ceeds
180 days
None -DACs are to follow their Career Pro-
gram Guidance concerning academic
degree training
-In accordance with AR 350 –1, Civil-
ians apply for the CES course targeted
to their current grade or, if applicable,
receive equivalency credit. The CES
foundation course is required for all Ci-
vilians hired after 30 September 2006
d. Inspectors general. IGs are the primary IG category and may lead and do all of the four IG functions and admin-
ister oaths. IGs are commissioned officers in the grade of captain and above and commissioned WOs in the grade of
CW3 and above detailed to serve as IGs. IGs are also Army Civilians in the grade of GS – 11 and above. Commissioned
officers must qualify for the detail under AR 614 – 100. Commands may hire Army Civilians in the grade of GS – 11
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 22
and above directly into IG positions; the position descriptions must outline the duties and capabilities of an IG and be
titled as inspector general (see para B– 4).
(1) Only IGs may serve as command/state IGs or acting command/state IGs.
(2) Only IGs may administer the IG oath to other IGs or assistant IGs.
(3) When a command IG is about to complete or curtail an IG detail, and another IG is not readily available to
assume or act in the position of command or State IG, the next higher level IG in the vertical chain will ensure that an
IG is available to provide technical assistance to the subordinate level IG staff section until another IG is assigned.
(4) Only U.S. personnel may serve as IGs.
e. Assistant inspectors general. Assistant IGs may lead the IG functions of inspections, assistance, and teaching and
training; assist IGs in conducting investigations and investigative inquiries; and administer oaths (but not the IG oath
to IGs and other assistant IGs). Assistant IGs are NCOs in the grade of promotable staff sergeant and above and Army
Civilians in the grade of GS –9. Commands may hire these Civilians directly into assistant IG positions; the position
descriptions must outline the duties and capabilities of an assistant IG in accordance with CP55 guidelines and re-
quirements and be titled as assistant inspector general. Noncommissioned officers must qualify for the assignment
in accordance with AR 614 – 200. Military technicians may serve as assistant IGs in accordance with AR 614 –200
if their dual status is only for IG duty (see app B).
(1) Assistant IGs may lead inspections only with the command IG’s approval and oversight.
(2) Assistant IGs will assist IGs in the conduct of investigations or investigative inquiries by assisting in gathering
testimony either by pairing with the IG or with another assistant IG. Assistant IGs may also gather testimony without
the direct presence of an IG or another assistant IG.
f. Temporary assistant inspectors general. Temporary assistant IGs are commissioned officers, WOs, NCOs, Army
Civilian employees, and selected non-Army Civilians who are subject-matter experts temporarily detailed from their
current assignment or duty position to augment an IG inspection or, in selected cases, an investigation team for
a specified period of time. Commanders with authority over the required individuals may task them to serve as
temporary assistant IGs. However, the commander must request through normal command or tasking channels those
individuals required as temporary assistant IGs but who are from outside the command. Additional guidance is avail-
able in AR 614 – 100 for commissioned and WOs, AR 614 – 200 for NCOs, AR 140 – 10 for USAR personnel, and
CP55 for DACs.
(1) Individuals detailed as temporary assistant IGs must possess the required specialty training, expertise, and field
experience.
(2) Temporary assistant IGs will work under the direct supervision of an IG; will not lead an inspection, investiga-
tive inquiry, or investigation; and will not process IGARs. Temporary assistant IGs may assist an IG or assistant IG
with IGARs only if their special expertise is required.
(3) The term of service for a temporary assistant IG depends on the duration of the inspection or investigation in
which the individual has been assigned to support. TIG must approve Soldiers and Civilians assigned as temporary
assistant IGs who perform IG duties for more than 180 days (see Appendix B for nomination guidance). The ACOM,
ASCC, and DRU commanders will approve Soldiers and Civilians assigned as temporary assistant IGs to
perform IG duties in excess of 90 (but fewer than 180) days. The ACOM, ASCC, and DRU commanders may
delegate this authority to the first general officer in the chain of command. The local commander authorized a com-
mand IG will approve temporary assistant IGs assigned for 90 days or less.
(4) Command IGs will ensure that persons selected to serve as temporary assistant IGs receive appropriate training
before assisting with IG functions. At a minimum, they must receive training on the basic IG concept and system, the
IG tenet of confidentiality, and the restrictions and limitations placed upon the use of IG records. Temporary assistant
IGs who are expected to serve longer than 180 days must be locally nominated for IG duty, in accordance with ap-
pendix B, and will attend TIGS’s basic course as soon as possible. Exceptions require TIG approval.
(5) Temporary assistant IGs will not administer oaths.
(6) Command IGs may designate as temporary assistant IGs those military personnel nominated by U.S.
Army Human Resources Command (HRC), USARC, or NGB and approved by TIG for IG duty but who are waiting
to attend TIGS’s basic course. Command IGs may also designate as temporary assistant IGs those DACs hired by the
command IG/hiring official to fill TDA billets and who are waiting to attend the basic course.
g. Acting inspectors general. Acting IGs are commissioned officers in the grade of captain or above or Civilians in
the grade of GS – 11 and above appointed to this additional—but temporary—duty by an ACOM, ASCC, or DRU
commander or the senior Army Forces commander when serving under a Joint or combatant command. An acting IG
assists an IG (usually a command IG) with receiving IGARs in population areas for which the IG has responsibility
but from which the IG is often geographically separated. TIG may approve exceptions (submitted through DAIG’s
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 23
Operations and Support Division) in cases where a commissioned officer in the rank of captain or civilian in the
appropriate grade is not available to serve as an acting IG.
(1) IGs may forgo the need to recommend an acting IG by conducting periodic IG assistance visits,
publishing toll-free numbers, using fax transmittals, receiving IGARs in conjunction with inspections, and crafting
memorandums of agreement with other IGs.
(2) Acting IGs will only provide assistance by receiving IGARs and referring them to the supervising IG. The
acting IG may resolve selected IGARs as defined in writing by the supervising IG. Since acting IG duty is an
additional responsibility, and to prevent conflicts of interest, acting IGs will only provide assistance to complainants
who provide IGARs that are personal or administrative in nature, such as minor pay problems, loss of household
goods, or obtaining an identification card for a spouse. In these cases, the acting IG is authorized to conduct a limited
assistance inquiry to resolve the matter. The acting IG will promptly refer any other complaints that are not of a routine
administrative nature to the supervising command IG or senior IG for action. The acting IG will receive the IGAR but
must notify the complainant that the applicable IG or command IG will process and resolve the matter.
(3) Acting IGs will not have access to the IGARS database or maintain IG case files except for those records nec-
essary to close a case or complete another IG action on the supervising IG’s behalf. After a case is complete, the
acting IG will forward all IG records to the supervising IG. The supervising IG will then enter the case as an
information or standard IGAR in IGARS. After the supervising IG receives the IG records and enters the case into
IGARS, the supervising IG will direct the acting IG to appropriately destroy the IG records and documents at the
acting IG’s location.
(4) Acting IGs will not lead or assist with inspections, investigative inquiries, or investigations. However,
supervising IGs and/or command IGs may task an acting IG to collect documents at the acting IG’s location for an
inspection, assistance inquiry, investigative inquiry, or investigation or to assist in making administrative arrange-
ments for an inspection, assistance, or investigation team. Acting IG support for the inspections, assistance, and
investigations functions will not exceed this kind of limited administrative help.
(5) Acting IGs may assist IGs and assistant IGs with teaching and training.
(6) Acting IGs will not administer oaths.
(7) Supervising IGs (normally a command IG) will provide oversight, technical advice, and guidance and train
acting IGs on their duties and responsibilities, to include all necessary doctrinal procedures.
(8) Commissioned officers in the chain of command, or those who routinely assume duties in the chain
of command, will not be designated as acting IGs. For example, a battalion executive officer will not be assigned as
an acting IG. If the executive officer assumed temporary command of the battalion, the officer’s effectiveness as an
acting IG would be compromised. The Inspector General will approve all exceptions, which must be submitted
through DAIG’s Operations and Support Division.
(9) Acting IGs will not be assigned to conduct non-IG investigations, such as AR 15– 6 investigations, commander’s
inquiries, financial liability investigations of property loss, line of duty investigations, and UCMJ, Art. 32 investiga-
tions (see para 2 – 7, below). Although these duties may not conflict directly with the acting IG’s duties, they may
create the perception in the command of an IG investigation while placing the acting IG in a position of fulfilling two
separate but opposing roles.
(10) When an acting IG is approved, the command will announce the designation of the acting IG by memorandum
with a courtesy copy provided to TIG. The command will also send a memorandum to the acting IG specifying the
extent of the acting IG’s authority to receive and act upon requests for assistance and will identify the IG charged with
supervising the acting IG’s activities.
h. Administrative support staff members. Administrative support staff members are Soldiers and Civilian employees
who serve in administrative support positions (such as administrative assistants, secretaries, drivers, computer opera-
tors, clerks, typists, and so forth) in an IG staff section. Although they are not assistant IGs, they will take the IG oath
(see para 2 – 6, below) because they are part of the IG system and will have access to IG records and the IGARS
database. Administrative support staff members will not perform any of the IG functions (unless a graduate of TIGS
and authorized by TIG) but are obligated to protect confidentiality in accordance with paragraph 1 – 12, above.
(1) Administrative support staff members are not required to attend TIGS’s basic course but are strongly encouraged
do so on a space-available basis.
(2) The command IG may designate school-trained administrative support staff members to serve for a specified
period time as assistant IGs when circumstances arise that require increased capability within the IG staff section.
These designated administrative support staff members must meet the rank / grade requirements for an assistant IG
and may perform all the duties of an assistant IG (see para 2–2d, above). Command IGs will report these
temporary changes in an administrative support staff member's status to DAIG’s Operations and Support Division
(SAIG–OP) within 14 days of the individual's designation as an assistant IG.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 24
(3) Contract personnel serving in IG staff sections as administrative support staff members will normally perform
support functions, such as transcribing testimony. These contract personnel will not take the IG oath, but any contract
providing support to an IG staff section will include provisions requiring contractor personnel to maintain the confi-
dentiality of IG records and information.
2–3. Wear of inspector general insignia
a. Inspectors general. IGs who are commissioned officers or commissioned WOs will wear the IG insignia follow-
ing the successful completion of TIGS’s basic course (see AR 670 – 1). These commissioned officers and commis-
sioned WOs will not wear the IG insignia in official photographs. Civilian IGs may wear officer IG insignia as a lapel
device.
b. Assistant inspectors general. Noncommissioned officers serving as assistant IGs will wear the enlisted version
of the IG insignia following successful completion of TIGS’s basic course (see AR 670 – 1). These NCOs will not wear
the IG insignia in official photographs. Civilian assistant IGs may wear officer IG insignia as a lapel device.
c. Temporary assistant inspectors general. Commissioned officers, WOs, and NCOs assigned as temporary assis-
tant IGs will wear the IG insignia when the duration of their IG service exceeds 180 days and upon completion of
TIGS's basic course. Civilian temporary assistant IGs may wear officer IG insignia as a lapel device if their IG
duty exceeds 180 days and upon completion of TIGS's basic course.
d. Acting inspectors general. Acting IGs will not wear IG insignia.
e. Administrative support staff members. Administrative support staff members who are NCOs or enlisted Soldiers
will not wear the IG insignia. Civilians or contractors serving as administrative support staff members will not wear
lapel versions of the IG insignia or any other insignia that might identify them as IGs.
2–4. Inspector general certification
a. Certification steps and skill identifiers for military inspectors general. All officers, warrant officers, and NCOs
assigned to IG duty must follow a three-step IG certification process as follows: (1) nomination (see app B); (2)
selection, which is approval of the nomination; and (3) training, which is the successful completion of TIGS’s basic
course (see chap 4). TIG certifies all uniformed Army IGs to perform IG duties after they complete this three-step
process. Only Army officers and NCOs assigned to (and who serve in) valid Army IG line and paragraph numbers on
Army MTOE and TDA authorizations documents or other valid Army IG requirements and who successfully complete
TIGS’s basic course will receive a special identifier. Officers and WOs will receive an additional skill identifier
(ASI) of 5N, and NCOs will receive the special qualification identifier (SQI) “B.” Military administrative
support staff members who attend the course on a space-available basis will not receive the SQI. Army officers and
NCOs designated for Joint or defense-level IG assignments and who attend TIGS’s basic course in addition to, or in
lieu of, the DOD Joint Inspector General Course will not receive the ASI or SQI.
b. Certification steps for Army Civilian inspectors general. All Army Civilians hired as IGs or assistant IGs must
follow a two-step IG certification process as follows:
(1) Selection and hiring by the local command IG. Selection and hiring standards for civilian IGs appear in appendix
B.
(2) Successful completion of the basic course at TIGS.
c. Nominations and requisitions. TIG approves the nominations of all officers, WOs, and NCOs to serve as IGs and
assistant IGs within the Army IG system. HRC makes nominations for Regular Army assignments as IGs, assistant
IGs, and temporary assistant IGs serving more than 180 days either as a result of the requisition process or of the
identification of a local nominee by the commander or command IG. TIG will not consider multiple nominations for
one duty position. Specific nomination and requisition procedures appear in appendix B.
2–5. Length of inspector general assignments
a. Tour length. Detail for officers, WOs, and NCOs serving in an IG duty position is in accordance with current
Army assignment policies and Army leadership priorities. Soldiers are nominated to fill IG positions using
the procedures in appendix B.
(1) IG duty is career enhancing and provides a unique opportunity for officers and NCOs to gain a broad perspective
and understanding of the Army not usually available in any other assignment. Selection for IG duty represents an
investment in these Soldiers that will continue to benefit the Army long after their IG tour of duty is complete.
(2) IG duty is based on Soldiers having contemporary and extensive Army experience. As such, the best candidates
will have served in diverse assignments and possess subject-matter expertise in how the Army functions. Their expe-
rience will include a thorough understanding and practice in Army culture; Army doctrine; and current tactics, tech-
niques, and procedures. They must have impeccable professional and ethical reputations and an Army record that
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 25
reflects outstanding performance and demonstrated potential for future promotion and service. Likewise, they must
be excellent written and verbal communicators. These essential attributes establish credibility for the IG in the eyes
of the Soldiers, Family members, and Civilians seeking IG assistance as well as senior leaders who rely on IGs for
advice and counsel.
(3) IG assignments will normally not exceed a traditional assignment period of 36 months (or a tour elected in
accordance with AR 614 – 30). This time limitation ensures that IG experience does not become dated, keeps officers
and NCOs competitive in their basic branches, and further benefits the Army by returning Soldiers with IG skills and
experience to the Army at large.
(4) Commanders who are directing authorities are encouraged to nominate as IGs those Soldiers from within the
command who are leaving command or senior NCO positions, who meet the attributes outlined in paragraph 2–5a (2),
and who have the complete confidence of the commander. Commanders who are directing authorities must first gain
the concurrence of the respective HRC, USARC, or NGB assignment managers before these commands nominate a
Soldier for TIG approval for IG duty.
(5) A specified length of assignment for DACs serving as IGs and assistant IGs (to include military technicians)
does not exist. DAC assignments are indefinite; however, the command (or State) IG determines the length of assign-
ment for Civilians in accordance with applicable civilian employment policies.
b. Curtailment or removal from inspector general duty. IGs may be curtailed or released from IG duty for several
reasons as outlined below.
(1) TIG, in coordination with the directing authority and chain of command, may remove any Soldier or DAC
from service as an IG because of lost faith and confidence in the IG; for cause; or for violations of law, regulation,
or the professional Army ethic, which represents a combination of the Army Values; the Warrior Ethos; the Civilian
Corps Creed; and, for IGs, the IG oath (see AR 600 – 100 and AR 600 –20).
(2) Commanders who are directing authorities may relieve military IGs because of lost faith and confidence in the
IG, for cause, or for loss of medical qualifications without TIG approval when appropriate in accordance with AR
600 – 20. DAC IGs may lose their IG status based on misconduct verified by an investigative action. Commanders who
are directing authorities must notify TIG through DAIG’s Operations and Support Division (and NGB or USARC
as applicable) of any relief action immediately.
(3) TIG may decertify any IG removed from IG duties, whether relieved for cause or removed without a relief for
cause, for lack of faith and confidence, for misconduct, or for loss of medical qualifications. Likewise, TIG may
permanently rescind the individual’s access to the IGNET and IGARS. The command will reassign decertified Sol-
diers to a non-IG position within the organization. Civilian IGs will likewise be reassigned to another position in the
command or terminated in accordance with the DOD Civilian Personnel Management System.
(4) Assignment managers may reassign Soldiers to move anytime within the 36-month assignment period based on
the needs of the Army and Army leadership priorities. In all instances, officers, WOs, and NCOs approved by TIG for
IG duty will not be reassigned or removed until TIG is notified by assignment managers via DAIG’s Operations and
Support Division and a viable replacement is nominated and subsequently approved by TIG.
(5) IG duty is terminated once a Soldier conducts a permanent change of station, begins transition leave and/or
retirement, is relieved for cause, or has his or her IG certification permanently revoked by TIG. Civilian IG duty is
terminated if the Civilian moves to a non-IG position, has his or her certification permanently revoked by TIG, or is
terminated from Federal service. In all cases, Soldiers and Civilians in these categories will have their IGNET and
IGARS access removed, their office keys retrieved, and their access to IG records denied. They will not be allocated
office space in the IG office.
(6) In an effort to protect the integrity of the IG system and to ensure proper IG support, commanders/directing
authorities who are considering curtailing a Soldier’s IG detail must coordinate through the respective HRC,
USARC, or NGB assignment managers to obtain TIG approval prior to curtailment. TIG will normally approve a
commander’s request for curtailment based upon professional development reasons, including, but not limited to,
assignment to branch-qualifying positions or professional-development schools. Under special conditions, TIG may
approve curtailment or removal of an IG without prejudice. The commander or the Soldier will initiate a request for
curtailment and removal without prejudice on DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) or in memorandum format with a
justification and an anticipated release date. The immediate supervisor and the commander/directing authority
must endorse curtailment requests. These requests will be processed through normal personnel channels through the
Soldier’s assignment manager (at HRC, USARC, or NGB). The assignment manager will forward requests to DAIG’s
Operations and Support Division for TIG approval. Replacements for all approved curtailments will be processed
through normal personnel channels.
(7) The CNGB will ensure that all ARNGUS requests for IG duty curtailments for both Regular Army and
ARNGUS Soldiers will be forwarded through the IG, NGB, prior to being sent to TIG for approval.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 26
(8) All requests for duty curtailments for USAR Soldiers will be forwarded through the IG, USARC, prior to being
sent to TIG for approval.
(9) In all cases of curtailment, relief, removal, and termination, IGs and assistant IGs will be restricted from IG
offices and their permissions and access to IGNET/IGARS terminated. The commander or command IG will notify
TIG through DAIG’s Operations and Support Division (SAIG – OP) no later than the last IG duty day.
(10) IGs and assistant IGs undergoing a commander’s AR 15 – 6 investigation or criminal investigation may be
temporarily removed from IG offices and have all IGNET/IGARS permissions and access temporarily suspended until
the investigation is complete. The investigation results will determine if TIG terminates the IG or assistant IG from
IG duty permanently.
c. Extensions of inspector general duty. Many officers, WOs, and NCOs request fourth-year extensions to IG duty.
The approval process for these and other extensions varies by component as follows:
(1) For Regular Army Soldiers, the Soldier’s commander/directing authority and assignment manager are the ap-
proval authorities for extending an IG or assistant IG from a third to a fourth year. All other extensions require
the assignment manager’s concurrence and then TIG’s approval. The immediate supervisor must endorse extension
requests for subsequent processing through normal personnel channels to the Soldier’s assignment manager. The as-
signment manager will provide copies of all approved extensions to DAIG’s Operations and Support Division. If the
assignment manager disapproves the extension request, he or she will send a copy of the disapproval to DAIG’s
Operations and Support Division. If the assignment manager approves an extension request for an IG detail beyond 4
years, he or she must forward that request to DAIG’s Operations and Support Division with the MTOE or TDA line
and paragraph number for coordination and final approval by TIG.
(2) For USAR Soldiers, the IG, USARC, is the approval authority for all fourth-year extensions. The
immediate supervisor of all USAR IGs must endorse the extension request and forward it to IG, USARC. Active
Guard Reserve IGs must submit the extension request to the Soldier’s career manager at HRC. The career manager
must approve the fourth-year extension request and forward the recommendation to IG, USARC, for approval. Indi-
vidual mobilization augmentees (IMAs) assigned as IGs will submit their extension requests through the chain of
command to the IG, USARC, for approval. The IG, USARC will forward all extension requests for IG duty beyond 4
years that USARC supports to DAIG’s Operations and Support Division for coordination and final TIG approval. The
IG, USARC, will notify TIG via DAIG’s Operations and Support Division that a USAR Soldier has been extended
for a fourth year. The notification will include a valid MTOE or TDA line and paragraph number. TIG must approve
all other extension requests.
d. Consecutive or repetitive inspector general tours. TIG must approve all currently serving IGs for consecutive or
repetitive IG tours. Consecutive tours are defined as IG duty at a new unit under a different unit identification code
(UIC) and line and paragraph number. Officers, WOs, and NCOs will normally not serve consecutive or repetitive
tours as an IG. Officers, WOs, and NCOs must be nominated for consecutive tours using the nomination procedures
in appendix B. Civilians may compete for, and be hired into, a different IG position.
e. Completion of Inspector General tours. Once a military IG or assistant IG is reassigned or begins transition leave,
that individual is no longer an IG, and all access to the IG office, IGNET, and IGARS will be terminated. Likewise,
Civilian IGs and assistant IGs who take another job or who retire are no longer IGs, and their access will be terminated.
2–6. Inspector general oath
a. Significance of the oath. Officers, warrant officers, NCOs, and Army Civilians serving as IGs and administrative
support staff members will take the IG oath. The oath exists in three variations: one version for IGs, assistant IGs, and
temporary assistant IGs; one version for non-IGs/administrative support staff members; and one version for acting
IGs. The core language is the same for each oath; the only difference is the nature of the individual’s IG duty that
prefaces the core language. The oath reminds all IG personnel—regardless of category—of the special trust and con-
fidence inherent in their positions.
(1) Text for the oath taken by Inspector Generals, assistant Inspector Generals, and temporary assistant Inspector
Generals (DA Form 5097 (The Inspector General Oath)): I, _____, having been assigned as an Inspector General, do
solemnly swear (or affirm) that I accept the special obligations and responsibilities of the position freely; that I will
uphold the standards for Inspectors General prescribed by regulations; and that I will, without prejudice or partiality,
discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God. [This last phrase is optional.]
(2) Text for the oath taken by non-IGs/administrative support staff members (DA Form 5097 – 1 (Inspector General
Oath (Non-IG))): I, _____, having been assigned in the office of an Inspector General, do solemnly swear (or affirm)
that I accept the special obligations and responsibilities of the position freely; that I will uphold the standards for
Inspectors General prescribed by regulations; and that I will, without prejudice or partiality, discharge the duties of
the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God. [This last phrase is optional.]
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 27
(3) Text for the oath taken by acting Inspector Generals (DA Form 5097 – 2 (Inspector General Oath (Acting-
IG))): I, _____, having been assigned as an Acting Inspector General, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I accept the
special obligations and responsibilities of the position freely; that I will uphold the standards for Inspectors General
prescribed by regulations; and that I will, without prejudice or partiality, discharge the duties of the office upon which
I am about to enter. So help me God. [This last phrase is optional.]
b. Administering the oath. The commander as the directing authority should administer the oath to the command
IG (at a minimum) and every IG serving in the IG staff section, preferably in a public forum where a significant portion
of the command may witness it. If the commander is unable to administer the oath to all IGs in the staff section, the
command IG will administer it instead. IGs may administer the IG oath to any category of IG, but assistant IGs may
only administer the IG oath to temporary assistant IGs and acting IGs. Temporary assistant IGs and acting IGs will
not administer the IG oath. Contractor personnel working in an IG staff section will not take the IG oath.
c. Re-administering the oath. When a commander departs the command, the command IG may choose to execute
another IG oath with the incoming commander as a way to express to that new commander the special relationship
shared by both individuals. However, a new oath is not required. IGs serving in the command’s IG staff section may
execute a new IG oath with the incoming commander at that commander’s discretion. If an IG moves to an IG staff
section in another command, the IG will execute a new oath with his or her new commander. All individuals
with prior IG experience who are nominated for a second consecutive or nonconsecutive IG detail must execute the
IG oath upon arriving at his or her new command.
d. The oath certificate. IGs of all categories who graduate from TIGS’s basic course will receive an IG oath certif-
icate as part of their graduation packets. Command IGs may request the oath certificate from TIGS for individuals
who do not attend the school, such as temporary assistant IGs or acting IGs. Since TIG and the Secretary of the
Army sign each certificate, command IGs must request DA Form 5097, DA Form 5097 – 1, and/or DA Form 5097 –2
from TIGS’s registrar. If oath certificates are not available, or requesting them in advance from TIGS is not feasible
or timely, IGs may use a memorandum for record to document the administering of the oath until the official certifi-
cates are available or arrive (see text for the different oaths in paragraph 2–6a, above). All IG oath certificates, includ-
ing replacement certificates for IGs of all categories who are re-administered the oath, are only available from The
U.S. Army Inspector General School (SAIG – TR), 5500 21st Street, Suite 2305, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060 –5935.
2–7. Inspector general duty restrictions
a. Intent. Officers, WOs, NCOs, and Army Civilians serving as IGs, assistant IGs, and acting IGs must not perform
duties that might interfere with their status as fair, impartial fact-finders and confidants within the command. IGs are
never off the record, do not establish command policy, and do not recommend adverse personnel action. The re-
strictions set forth in this paragraph are intended to preclude conflicts of interest, prevent the prejudice of impartiality,
and protect the integrity of the IG system. However, these restrictions are not intended to exclude IGs from performing
normal Soldier duties, such as attending physical training with the organization, conducting motor stables and other
mission-related maintenance activities, or performing management functions normal for staff sections, such as budg-
eting and contributing to goal-setting for the command. Keeping the intent of IG duty restrictions in mind, IGs will
not—
(1) Be assigned to any evaluation or assistance functions not led by an IG, such as command maintenance and
evaluation teams, aviation resource management survey teams, command and staff inspection teams, or other similar
teams.
(2) Be appointed as investigating officers under Articles 32 and 138: Uniform Code of Military Justice, AR 15 – 6,
or any other regulation providing for the appointment of investigating officers or members of administrative separation
boards. However, IGs will serve as members of a court-martial panel if directed to do so by the general or special
courts-martial convening authority. In addition, TIG, DTIG, the Director of Army Inspections, or TIG’s executive
officer may appoint IGs within DAIG as investigating officers on matters within DAIG in accordance with AR 15 – 6,
or for financial liability investigations of property loss in accordance with AR 735 – 5. In this case, the officer will
follow the procedures prescribed in the applicable regulation to perform the investigation or financial liability in-
vestigation of property loss and not IG procedures as outlined in this regulation.
(3) Be assigned duties that may subsequently disqualify them from making or assisting in impartial inquiries or
investigations within their sphere of activity. Examples include staff duty officer or NCO; line of duty investigator;
casualty assistance officer or NCO; member of an interior guard force; member of a contracting awards board; member
of a civilian awards board; member of a local awards board, promotion board, or command board; internal control
coordinator; member of a funeral detail; or member of any committee or function which may present a conflict of
interest with IG duties and responsibilities unless that committee or function is directly related to IG matters.
However, IGs may serve as members of DA-level boards when directed to do so by the appropriate authority and may
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 28
take actions to retain current professional credentials or to stay current in their professional field, such as medical
personnel seeing a limited number of patients to retain medical credentials.
b. Roles and restrictions in the Organizational Inspection Program. Due to the IG’s role as OIP advisor to the
commander, commanders may designate IGs to serve as the command’s OIP coordinator. These IGs may assist in the
organization, coordination, and training of inspectors for the commander’s command inspection program but
are restricted from leading or physically inspecting as part of the command inspection effort (see AR 1 – 201). For
specific guidance regarding the IG’s role and restrictions in command and staff inspections within the OIP, see para-
graph 5–1g, below.
c. Restrictions for temporary assistant inspectors general. Temporary assistant IGs will not perform other duties
while supporting an IG inspection or investigation until released by the command IG or the directing
authority. Temporary assistant IGs will not provide IG information to their parent commands and will refer any and
all inquiries to the command IG.
d. Exceptions for non-inspector general duty. Commanders must gain TIG approval to use their IGs for non-IG
duties due to operational requirements, taskings, and other demands—even if the tasking or requirement is only for 1
day in duration. Examples of non-IG duties are charge of quarters NCO, special project officer, transition team leader,
strategic initiatives officer, event coordinator, and officer in charge. IGs will advise their commanders that TIG re-
serves the right to approve or disapprove all such requests. In all cases, a memorandum on command letterhead signed
by the commander/directing authority will be sent to TIG via DAIG’s Operations and Support Division (SAIG – OP)
requesting the exception. The memorandum must cite the affected paragraphs in AR 20 – 1. The justification must
clearly state the nature of the non-IG duty, why the IG is the only officer/NCO/civilian in the command capable of
performing the non-IG duty, and the fact that the commander/directing authority is willing to accept risk in the IG
mission. The risk mitigation must state what IG function will be negatively affected or not performed and the impact
to the command. The commander/directing authority must sign the memorandum, or TIG will not consider the request.
Chapter 3
Inspector General Records
3–1. Nature of inspector general records and information
a. The mission of the Army IG records and information release program is to balance the confidentiality of those
seeking assistance from, testifying to, and providing information to the IG with the law, with the needs of the Army,
and with due process concerns. This balanced release enhances the public's trust in the Army IG system and in the
IG's effectiveness as an impartial inspector, assistor, and investigator. All IG records and information, including
USAR, ARNG, and ARNGUS IG records and information, belong to the SECARMY. IGs maintain these records and
safeguard this information on behalf of the SECARMY. The SECARMY’s designated authority for the maintenance
and release of all IG records and information is TIG.
b. IG records are documents that IGs produce through the performance of IG duties or documents given to an IG in
confidence, such as in the course of receiving an IG complaint. IG records often contain sensitive and confidential
information and advice. Army IG records include written or recorded IG work-products created during the course of
an IG inspection, assistance inquiry, investigative inquiry, or investigation. Examples include IG reports, IGNET data,
or other computer automatic data processing files or data, to include IG notes and working papers. Documents given
to the IG in confidence and not referred to the command are considered IG records as well.
c. Non-IG records are documents contained within an IG file created by other Army or Federal agencies or docu-
ments from outside the Federal Government. While these records may be under the control of the IG for purposes of
conducting inspections, assistance inquiries, investigative inquiries, and investigations, release of these records re-
mains under the jurisdiction of the originating organization.
d. The records management (recordkeeping) requirement for all record numbers, forms, and reports required by AR
20 – 1 are addressed in the Records Retention Schedule—Army (RRS– A). Detailed information for all related record
numbers, forms, and reports for AR 20 – 1 are located in ARIMS/RRS – A at https://www.arims.army.mil.
Note. If any record numbers, forms, or reports are not current, addressed, and/or published correctly in
ARIMS/RRS– A, see DA Pam 25 – 403.
3–2. Protection of inspector general records
a. IGs will mark all unclassified IG records “For Official Use Only (FOUO)” and “Dissemination is prohibited
except as authorized by AR 20 – 1.” The markings will appear on all IG reports starting on the bottom of the front
cover, on every page that contains IG information, and on the outside of the back cover. Non-IG records, such as
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 29
supporting evidence, command investigations (or portions thereof), and other readily available documents, do not
require this marking. IG records will include supporting documents from the complainant without consent for release,
DA Form 1559, and IG-generated memorandums. See The Assistance and Investigations Guide for further details.
b. An IG will mark classified IG records and removable media storage devices in accordance with AR 380 – 5, AR
25 – 55, and all other applicable security classification guides. An IG will also mark these records as follows: “When
declassified, document becomes for official use only. Dissemination is prohibited except as authorized by AR 20 – 1.”
c. An IG will mark removable media storage devices containing IG data with the appropriate DA label (see AR
25 – 55 and AR 380 – 5) and with the “FOUO” and “Dissemination is prohibited except as authorized by AR 20 – 1”
markings as well.
d. Original copies of IG correspondence designed to leave IG control (such as replies to correspondence or subjects
and letters to MC) are not given protective markings and treatment. However, IGs will protectively mark file copies
of such correspondence if that correspondence leaves IG channels. Templates of IG correspondence designed to leave
IG control are found in "The Assistance and Investigations Guide."
e. Internal management documents designed to circulate within an IG office and that govern routine matters do not
require protective markings; however, they are still protected as FOUO material. Any IG sending an email message
containing IG information will ensure that the following footer is included in the message: INSPECTOR GENERAL
SENSITIVE INFORMATION: The information contained in this email and any accompanying attachments may con-
tain IG sensitive information, which is protected from mandatory disclosure under 5 USC 552. Matters within IG
records are often pre-decisional in nature and do not represent final approved DA policy. Dissemination is prohibited
except as authorized under AR 20 – 1. Do not release outside of DA channels without prior authorization from TIG. If
you are not the intended recipient of this information, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action
in reliance on this information is prohibited. If you received this email in error, please notify us immediately by return
email or by calling (ADD PHONE NUMBER).
f. The disposition and destruction of IG records will be in accordance with AR 25 – 400 –2 and with additional guid-
ance furnished by DAIG’s Information Resource Management Division (SAIG – IR). Refer to the Army Records In-
formation Management System record retention schedule at https://www.arims.army.mil and The Assistance and In-
vestigations Guide for further information. In addition, the destruction of IG records must conform to AR 25 – 55 and
AR 380 – 5 as appropriate. Army IG staff sections may dispose of hard copies or electronic files of Army IG records
scanned into IGARS but only after the Command IG or designated senior IG has verified that the IG has properly
uploaded all relevant documents and has closed the case.
3–3. Permissible releases of inspector general information
a. IG information includes information derived from IG records or produced in the performance of IG duties. IG
information pertains specifically to the content of an IG record and not the physical record itself.
b. IGs may release information from IG records to respond to requests for assistance, advice, or information; answer
complaints; and prepare final notifications. An IG should seek consent before releasing personal information to resolve
a case and record this consent in the IGAR case notes. IGs will consult DAIG’s Records-Release Office or the com-
mand legal advisor when they are uncertain whether the use of personal information will cause either an unwarranted
invasion of privacy or a breach of IG confidentiality. Exceptions to this rule apply to organizations authorized to
request records screening in accordance with DODI 1320.04.
c. IGs may, and should, release Army IG information to legal advisors from whom the IG seeks legal advice. This
release is to enable the legal advisor to render accurate legal advice to the IG. The legal advisor may not further release
this information without permission from a DAIG information release authority (see para 3–4b, below).
d. Command IGs may release information pertaining to a ROI or ROII to the directing authority for informational
purposes only and not for adverse action. See paragraph 3–4a, below, for further guidance on the permissible release
of IG information related to reports of investigation or investigative inquiry.
e. Directing authorities may not release information pertaining to one of their commands’ Army IG inspections or
investigations to the media without permission from a DAIG information release authority.
f. Reference to IG information in non-IG records or reports is not authorized without written approval from TIG.
This written approval will be obtained via DAIG's Records-Release Office (SAIG – JAR).
3–4. Permissible releases of inspector general records
a. Command IGs may release a ROI or ROII to the directing authority for informational purposes only and not for
adverse action. Directing authorities may have an official need for an ROI or ROII. Such official uses may include
verbal counseling of a substantiated subject or suspect, or background information to justify initiating a follow-on
command investigation. IGs will advise directing authorities on the confidentiality of IG information, the protection
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 30
of IG records, and the restrictions on release to others. The directing authority may not release the ROI or ROII to
anyone else without permission from an appropriate DAIG records-release authority (see para 3–6a, below).
b. Command IGs may release any Army IG document to a legal advisor from whom the IG seeks legal advice. This
release is to enable the legal advisor to render accurate legal advice to the IG. The legal advisor may not further release
Army IG documents outside of the legal office without permission from an appropriate DAIG release authority. Army
IG documents include IG complaints and IG referral letters to the command. Legal advisors may not release Army IG
documents to a command investigator without permission from an appropriate DAIG release authority. Legal advisors
may not keep any IG document on file in any legal office.
c. Command IGs may release an inspection report to the directing authority, who in turn may release the approved
report to other Army agencies and commands when an official need for the report is apparent. Once the IG releases
the inspection report to the directing authority, he or she may in turn release the report to members of his or her own
staff and/or command or to other Army commands or agencies as necessary. Further, the directing authority and/or
the IG may distribute the inspection report to those units or staff proponents who have a need-to-know and who will
help improve the system, function, or program inspected or who may benefit from the report’s information. These
release privileges pertain only to IG inspection reports of systemic issues prepared as outlined in paragraph 1–13d(1)
and “The Inspections Guide,” not for reports of general (compliance) inspections conducted by IGs on individual
units.
d. IGs may share DAIG inspection reports posted to the IGNET and Army Publishing Directorate Web pages with
their commands if the commands have an official need for the report. IGs will limit distribution of these reports using
the FOUO classification.
e. Any IGs who are hiring officials may release to civilian personnel operations centers (CPOCs) the results of any
IG screens that make a candidate unsuitable for service as an IG (see para B–4b (6), below).
f. The chief of DAIG’s Assistance Division (SAIG – AC) may release complaints and attachments to the Army staff
and Secretariat for command investigations or inquiries. The warning statement placed by DOD IG on all DOD Hot-
line cases states that it is a Department of Defense IG document and may contain information that could identify an
IG source. The identity of an IG source must be protected, and access to the documents is limited to persons with the
need-to-know for the purpose of providing a response to the DOD IG. The documents cannot be released, reproduced,
or disseminated (in whole or in part) outside of the DOD without the prior written approval of the DOD IG or author-
ized designee. Subjects, witnesses, or others cannot receive, review, or make copies of these documents.
g. Army IGs may release the following categories of Army IG information and documents to Army investigators,
defined as including, but not limited to, command investigating officers, officers conducting financial liability inves-
tigations of property loss, and similar investigators under Army regulations and outside IG channels. Law enforcement
investigators, such as Criminal Investigation Division (CID) and Military Police Investigation agents, seeking release
of Army IG documents and information must contact DAIG's Records-Release Office to request release (SAIG – JAR).
Army IGs will not provide any additional information to these investigators without approval of a DAIG records-
release authority (see para 3 –6, below). In particular, IGs may not allow DA investigators to interview them about
matters involving IG information without approval from DAIG’s Records-Release Office (see paragraph 3–9d, be-
low).
(1) IGs may inform investigators of allegations or matters the IG office examined; however, IGs will not reveal any
IG findings, opinions, conclusions, or recommendations.
(2) An IG may release documentary evidence that is readily available to any DA investigator. This evidence in-
cludes, but is not limited to, finance and personnel records, travel vouchers, motel and restaurant receipts, emails, and
so forth. “Readily available” includes documents that would be readily available from the source but have been lost,
destroyed, retired, or altered after the IG obtained them. For allegations referred to the command, the IG may release
all relevant, unredacted documentary evidence pertaining to the allegations or issues as long as the IG has notified the
complainant in writing prior to initiating the command referral and the complainant has consented to the release (see
para 7–1i(3)(e)).
(3) An IG may provide investigators (verbally or in writing) a list of witnesses, the witnesses’ contact information,
and a brief synopsis of their relevant testimony. The IG will not reveal which witness is the complainant (see para
1 – 12). Written statements, transcripts, and recorded tapes taken by the IG will not be released.
3–5. Use of inspector general records for adverse action
a. IG records will not be used as the basis for adverse action against any individual unless specifically authorized
by the SECARMY, the Under Secretary of the Army, the CSA, the VCSA, or TIG. Requests must be submitted to
TIG via DAIG’s Records-Release Office (SAIG– JAR) by mail to The U.S. Army Inspector General Agency
(SAIG–JAR), 1700 Army Pentagon, Room 1E132, Washington, DC 20310 – 1700, or emailed to
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 31
usarmy.pentagon.hqda-otig.mbx.saig-zxl@mail.mil. Any request to use the results of an IG investigation for adverse
action must state why the command did not initiate a command investigation into the alleged misconduct and why a
follow-on command investigation would be unduly burdensome, disruptive, or futile. Command investigations pre-
clude the necessity of using IG records for adverse action and thereby safeguard the integrity of the IG system. An
exception to this rule is the use of DODIG-approved reports of investigation or investigative inquiry containing sub-
stantiated non-senior official allegations of violations of 10 USC 1034 (reprisal) as a basis for adverse action.
b. Commanders and supervisors seeking to use IG records as the basis for adverse action should request only the
minimum amount of evidence necessary. The request should describe precisely which portions of the IG records are
necessary to support the adverse action and why. Assistance in determining whether an action is deemed adverse may
be obtained from the servicing legal office. The IG will encourage consultation between the commander or supervisor
concerned and the servicing legal office regarding the need for IG records for adverse action and the availability of
other evidence.
c. Commanders and supervisors will not initiate flagging actions for individuals because they are under IG investi-
gation, because such an action could be construed as adverse in nature. However, commanders will initiate flagging
actions for individuals under a command investigation when the IG refers the allegations to the command. Command-
ers or supervisors seeking approval for the use of IG records for adverse action may flag the individual upon TIG
approval to use IG records to support the adverse action. This provision does not preclude HRC or another similar
DA-level agency from initiating a DA-level flag on individuals identified, as the result of a DAIG record screen, as
having a substantiated finding from an IG investigation or investigative inquiry or pending IG investigation in order
to stop a promotion, assignment, appointment, reappointment, award, or school attendance until the IG investigation
is concluded.
3–6. Impermissible releases of inspector general records and information
a. A DAIG Records-Release Authority must approve any other use of Army IG records or information not specifi-
cally enumerated in this regulation. Requests to use IG records and information for official use must be in writing and
submitted for action to DAIG's Records-Release Office, The U.S. Army Inspector General Agency (SAIG – JAR),
1700 Army Pentagon, Room 1E132, Washington, DC 20310 – 1700, or emailed to usarmy.pentagon.hqda-
otig.mbx.saig-zxl@mail.mil. TIG or a designated representative, such as DAIG’s legal advisor and deputy legal advi-
sor, may approve the release of IG records outside IG channels. Normally, release of IG records will only be made
after case closure.
b. Any IG records provided FOUO will be returned to DAIG’s Records-Release Office or securely destroyed within
60 days or after the records have served their purpose. If destroyed, the FOUO recipient will inform DAIG’s Records-
Release Office that the records have been destroyed in a secure fashion, such as “burn bag” incineration or shredding.
These records are only on loan to the recipient and remain under the authority of TIG. Recipients of IG records are
not to incorporate them into a system of records subject to the PA (5 USC 552a) because the recipient’s system of
records may not be subject to the same PA exemptions as the IG system of records. The requesting agency’s intended
use of IG records must be in compliance with the “Department of Defense Blanket Routine Uses” published in the
Federal Register to receive the records without the consent of individuals mentioned in the IG records. The term
“Routine Uses" means that the requesting agency will use the record for the stated purpose. The release of IG records
for “Routine Uses” is strictly discretionary.
c. Use or attachment of IG records as exhibits or enclosures to non-IG agency records or reports is not authorized
without written approval from TIG, the DAIG legal advisor, or deputy legal advisor. This written approval will be
obtained via DAIG's Records-Release Office.
d. Commanders at any level will not use IG records to compare their commands or commanders for evaluation or
awards purposes, or cite inspection findings, inquiry results, or other IG information in an evaluation report, perfor-
mance appraisal, or other evaluation that is maintained in official personnel records, without approval from TIG
through DAIG’s Records-Release Office. However, rating officials and supervisors may cite the underlying conduct
that may have been the subject of the IG investigation or investigative inquiry for which evidence is readily available
from non-IG records or sources. Raters of Army IG personnel may cite inspection reports in evaluations and similar
IG information as an exception to this provision.
e. The inclusion of any IG information or record in a non-IG database is forbidden unless specifically required by
a DOD directive or Army regulation, or unless a DAIG Records-Release Authority approves. The only authorized
case-management database for Army IG records is the IGARS. Army IG records are not authorized for inclusion in
any other service’s IG database; any Joint command’s IG database; or any non-IG database, such as the Equal Oppor-
tunity Reporting System, unless specifically required by a DOD directive or Army regulation, or unless a DAIG Rec-
ords-Release Authority approves.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 32
3–7. Requests for inspector general records under the Freedom of Information Act
a. The FOIA is a statutory right of access to Federal Government information. The Government’s policy is to dis-
close requested records unless exempt or excluded from disclosure under the FOIA and PA (5 USC 552 and 552(a)).
TIG is the FOIA Initial Denial Authority for all Army IG documents requested under the FOIA. TIG delegates this
authority to the DAIG legal advisor and deputy legal advisor.
b. Examples of FOIA requests include the following:
(1) Requests for records by a Member of Congress. The IG will treat requests for copies of IG records by an MC,
either on the MC’s own behalf or on behalf of a constituent; by Congress as a whole; or by a Congressional committee
as records requests covered under the FOIA. Privacy Act requests by Congressional Committees fall under exception
9 to the Privacy Act, 5 USC 552 a (b) (9). Coordination with OCLL is required when requests are received from MCs.
(2) Release of witness statements. Individuals who have provided statements must submit a FOIA request to obtain
a copy of their own testimony.
(3) Media requests. An IG is not authorized to discuss specific inspections, assistance inquiries, investigative in-
quiries, or investigations with media representatives. All IGs will refer media inquiries to the local public affairs
officer. IGs will neither confirm nor deny that a specific subject or topic is, or has been, under investigation or inquiry.
IGs will not answer questions concerning hypothetical situations that might occur in performing their duties. There is
no prohibition against an IG answering questions of a general nature after coordination with the local public affairs
officer. Requests for IG records from media representatives will be referred to DAIG’s Records-Release Office.
c. DAIG’s Records-Release Office is the only component of DAIG designated to receive and process FOIA re-
quests. IG field offices and DAIG divisions should direct FOIA requestors to submit their requests directly to DAIG’s
Records-Release Office.
d. Requests must be submitted in writing or via email and reasonably identify the IG records sought. When possible,
IGs will assist requesters in identifying the specific information they are seeking, thereby limiting the volume of
records copied and processed for release.
e. Requests for IG records under the FOIA must comply with AR 25 – 55.
f. An IG who receives a FOIA request will forward the scanned original request and responsive documents (or
IGARS case number, if the documents are scanned into that case) to DAIG’s Records-Release Office via email
(usarmy.pentagon.hqda-otig.mbx.saig-zxl@mail.mil) or fax within 2 working days.
g. Once the request is received from DAIG’s Records-Release Office, IGs will enter the FOIA request in IGARS
in the case notes of the existing case or as an information IGAR. DAIG’s Records-Release Office will also log the
FOIA request into the Army Freedom of Information Act Case Tracking System.
3–8. Release of records and reports under the military whistleblower reprisal statute
a. An IG may provide information relating to complaints of whistleblower reprisal referral directly to DODIG Mil-
itary Reprisal Investigations upon request without TIG or DAIG’s Records-Release Office approval. This information
includes, but is not limited to, the original complaint with supporting documentation; IG records or investigation
material; official personnel and medical records (orders, evaluations, and so forth); AR 15 – 6 investigations, com-
mander’s inquiries, or equal opportunity investigations; and any other information deemed relevant to resolving an
official complaint. This exemption only applies when DODIG Military Reprisal Investigations requests the infor-
mation in support of a preliminary inquiry or investigation. If any questions arise, contact the Whistleblower Investi-
gations and Oversight Branch (WIOB) in DAIG’s Assistance Division at (703) 601 – 1060 or DSN 329 –1060.
b. DAIG’s Records-Release Office processes the release of whistleblower reprisal ROIs to complainants upon case
closure per 10 USC 1034. Release of reports containing substantiated whistleblower reprisal allegations to support
disciplinary and/or corrective action is made according to 10 USC 1034 and applicable Army policy or established
procedures.
3–9. Inspector general records in support of litigation
a. Maintaining inspector general impartiality. Minimizing exposure of Army IGs and Army IG documents to any
phase in litigation helps preserve the image of Army IG impartiality. This Army IG concern must be balanced, how-
ever, with constitutional due process.
b. Litigation. "Litigation" includes, but is not limited to, all phases of courts-martial (to include the Article 32 hear-
ing), State and Federal civil lawsuits, Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Commission hearings, and Merit Sys-
tems Protection Board proceedings.
c. Requests for records for discovery in a judicial proceeding. Discovery is the disclosure of relevant information
between opposing counsel before and during litigation. The following procedures apply:
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 33
(1) Discovery requests for IG records must be in writing and submitted to the Government representative in the
case.
(2) The Government representative will forward the request to DAIG’s Records-Release Office for action. The
Records-Release Office will release requested IG records to the Government representative for a relevancy determi-
nation.
(3) The Government representative will review the IG records to determine which portion(s), if any, of the IG
records are relevant to the case. If the Government representative determines that the IG records are relevant to the
case, the Government representative will submit a written request to DAIG’s Records-Release Office for release of
relevant portions of IG records to the Government counsel and defense counsel.
(4) Use of protective orders and in-camera reviews are encouraged to protect release of IG records outside of the
parties to the litigation.
d. Subpoenas and similar court orders. The U.S. Army Legal Services Agency Litigation Division is the proponent
for all aspects of litigation involving Army personnel or information. This office must be notified of any pending or
anticipated litigation involving the Army.
(1) IG personnel may not disclose any official information from IG files or any information acquired during the
performance of IG duties without prior written approval from DAIG's Records-Release Office or without approval
from TIG or the DAIG legal advisor or deputy legal advisor.
(2) When an IG receives a subpoena, court order, or request for attendance at a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding,
or a request for an interview that the IG reasonably believes is related to actual or potential litigation and the infor-
mation sought is from DA files or is known to the IG as a result of official duties, the IG will notify the local SJA and
DAIG’s Legal Advisor (SAIG – JA) within 48 hours. An IG must never ignore a subpoena.
(3) If a response to a subpoena or court order is required before TIG authorizes release, the IG will advise the
requesting official of the IG policy of records protection and confidentiality; inform the requesting official that the
request is being reviewed expeditiously; and seek a stay of the subpoena or order pending a final determination by
DAIG.
e. Other requests for Inspector General testimony. If a command investigator or other investigator requests IG tes-
timony or a statement in connection with a non-IG event, or where IG confidential information is not involved, then
the IG may testify without obtaining permission from DAIG’s Records-Release Office (SAIG – JAR). In all other
cases, the IG may not testify or render a statement of any kind without first obtaining approval from the Records-
Release Office.
3–10. Requests by labor organizations
a. The right of access, under 5 USC 7114(b)(4), requires agencies to furnish labor organizations with information
related to collective bargaining and includes IG records that meet the criteria listed in the statute. IGs will send requests
for IG records by labor organizations through the servicing legal office to obtain an opinion on whether the requested
documents are releasable under 5 USC 7114. IGs will forward the request, a copy of the requested records, the written
opinion of the labor law attorney, and a copy of the collective bargaining agreement to DAIG’s Records-Release
Office. Coordinate in advance with DAIG’s Records-Release Office.
b. This statutory right to agency information is in addition to access rights under the FOIA. IG records that do not
pertain to subjects within the scope of collective bargaining will not be released under 5 USC 7114(b)(4) but will be
processed under the FOIA.
3–11. Factual amendment of inspector general records
a. This paragraph pertains to requests to amend factual errors such as ranks, name spellings, and similar adminis-
trative errors contained in IG records. Information pertaining to requests to reconsider an IG finding, or matters of IG
opinion, judgment, or conclusions, appears in paragraph 3 – 12 below.
b. Persons will direct requests for the factual amendment of IG records to—
(1) The authority that directed the record’s creation (for example, the directing authority of an ROI).
(2) TIG for cases in which DAIG is the OOR.
c. Directing authorities may amend personal information on individuals contained in the record provided that ade-
quate documentary evidence supports the request. This amendment authority is limited to those portions of the record
containing facts (for example, the spelling of a name). For changes to other parts of an IG record, see paragraph 3 – 12
below.
d. Amendment requests for which the directing authority recommends denial must be supported by a memorandum
and forwarded to DAIG’s Records-Release Office. As the access and amendment refusal authority, TIG is the first
official who may deny requests to amend IG records.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 34
e. Should the directing authority review or re-look a case and, based on new evidence, determine that a subject
should be added or deleted, a function code should be changed, and/or a determination of an allegation is warranted,
the directing authority must submit that request to TIG in accordance with paragraph 3 – 12 below.
3–12. Requests for reconsideration of inspector general findings, opinions, judgment, or
conclusions
a. A request for reconsideration of the findings of an IG investigative inquiry or investigation may be submitted
upon the discovery of new evidence, identification of a mistake of law, or identification of a mistake of fact. New
evidence is that information not considered during the course of the initial investigation and that was not reasonably
available to the investigator for consideration. New evidence does not include character references, letters of recom-
mendation, or information that, while not considered at the time of the original investigation, the requestor and/or
subject/suspect of the investigation could have provided to the investigator during the course of the investigation.
Requests will be submitted within 3 years of the IG’s notification of the report’s findings to the requestor. All requests
to add or delete a subject, alter a function code, and/or alter an allegation determination in an IG record, regardless of
the source, will be forwarded or directed to DAIG’s Assistance Division (SAIG – AC) for referral to the appropriate
divisions within DAIG. The division chiefs of DAIG’s Assistance, Investigations, or Records-Screening Divisions
may disapprove requests for reconsideration not accompanied by new evidence or lacking in any argument supporting
the reconsideration. TIG is the only authority who may approve requests to amend determinations in IG records.
(1) If the request for modification of IG findings concerns a case that was solely based on a command report, the
request to modify the finding will be made or forwarded to DAIG’s Assistance Division. After confirmation, DAIG’s
Assistance Division will refer the requestor to the directing authority of the command investigation upon which the
IG findings were based. Once the command has made a decision concerning the reconsideration request, the requestor
may then submit the request, including the command decision, to DAIG’s Assistance Division.
(2) If the request for modification of IG findings concerns a case that involves IG findings based partially on a
command investigation, the request to modify the finding will be made or forwarded to DAIG’s Assistance Division.
The chief of DAIG’s Assistance Division will determine whether the requested amendment pertains solely to the
findings of the command investigation, requires the requestor to first seek to have the findings of the command’s
investigation reconsidered (para 3–12a (1) above), or pertains to IG investigative actions that require DAIG-level
reconsideration.
b. If a directing authority modifies or supplements the original ROI (changing or adding to the original findings)
and the IG used all or part of the command report to resolve a complaint, the modified report will be forwarded (usually
by the directing authority’s command IG) to DAIG’s Assistance Division with a written request, signed by the direct-
ing authority, to modify or reconsider the IG findings as appropriate. DAIG’s Assistance Division will review the
document and forward the request to the appropriate divisions within DAIG for review prior to action by TIG. TIG is
the only authority who may approve requests to amend determinations in IG records. The division chief for either
DAIG's Assistance, Investigations, or Records-Screening Divisions will review the request for modification of the IG
findings, the updated findings documented in the command ROI, and all other supporting information. The division
chief will then prepare and staff a formal recommendation and forward the packet to TIG for a final decision.
c. When a request for reconsideration of an IG findings concerns a case where DODIG is the approving authority,
including whistleblower reprisal and DOD Hotline cases, the IG receiving the request will refer the requestor to the
DODIG interactive website at www.dodig.mil.
Chapter 4
The Inspector General Teaching and Training Function
4–1. Teaching and training as a function
a. Teaching and training as both an embedded and independent function. Teaching and training is the fourth of the
Army IG system’s four functions and is traditionally embedded in the first three—inspections, assistance, and inves-
tigations. While inspecting, assisting, or investigating, IGs enhance the warfighting and readiness capabilities of the
Army by teaching and training commanders, Soldiers, and Civilians at all levels on current Army policy and doctrine.
Current operational tempo and the demands of the sustainable readiness model (SRM) are prompting IGs to perform
teaching and training as a separate function independent of the other three functions. This teaching and training ap-
proach helps units to re-establish internal systems following redeployment and to serve as a critical substitute for
experience when commanders have lost their more experienced officers and NCOs and need help training new
staffs and subordinate commanders. The Readiness Assistance Visit is an example of how IGs—who are selected
based on their experience, knowledge, demonstrated maturity, wisdom, and judgment—are ideally suited to assist unit
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 35
commanders in the early phases of SRM. Specifically, they help commanders re-establish internal systems that have
withered following redeployment and the reassignment of experienced leaders (see The Teaching and Training Guide
available from TIGS or the school’s website at https://tigs-online.ignet.army.mil/). An IG’s knowledge of the Army
also increases while serving as an IG due to the extensive research and analysis that IG duties require. As a result, IGs
develop a broader perspective of the Army that few Soldiers in other duty positions attain. The benefit of this broad
perspective is that IGs can incorporate teaching and training into all aspects of their duties. For example, when IGs
notice that inspected personnel are unaware of regulatory requirements, they explain the requirements and the
reason the Army established those requirements. Additionally, IGs pass on lessons learned and good practices ob-
served during other inspections, assistance visits, and teaching and training sessions. During these current periods of
transformation, organizational change, and high operational pace, the IG teaching and training function has become
more critical than ever as IGs ensure that Army leaders have a complete understanding of current Army policies
and procedures.
b. Teaching the Army inspector general system. The effectiveness of the IG system is, to a great extent, a function
of how receptive non-IGs are to the IG system. Therefore, IGs have a responsibility to teach their commanders,
Soldiers, and Civilians at all levels how IGs contribute to mission accomplishment. IGs must find opportunities to
explain the IG system’s purpose, functions, methods, benefits, and constraints to members of the command. IGs should
use pre-command courses, officer professional development programs, NCO development programs, newcomer brief-
ings, and other similar venues from which to teach the IG system to the Army at large. Failure to explain the IG system
to commanders and others may result in commanders misusing—or simply not using—their IGs.
c. Engagement with U.S. allies and partners. IGs may actively participate in engagement activities with allied and
partner nations in support of a directing authority's priorities or when opportunities present themselves. Many U.S.
allies and partners seek to enhance or develop their own IG systems in emulation of the U.S. Army in order to assist
commanders (or ministers of defense) in gauging readiness and preventing corruption. Not only are many U.S. allied
and partner IGs similar to their U.S. counterparts in task and purpose, a growing number of these IGs are actually
trained at TIGS and modeling their practices and procedures based on U.S. Army IG policy. As the Army moves to
implement an advise-and-assist force structure designed to enhance the warfighting capacity of U.S. allies and part-
ners, IGs at all echelons must be prepared to (a) conduct engagement activities with their counterparts in order to
demonstrate the effectiveness of an IG system, (b) assist allies and partners in standing up (or enhancing) their own
internal inspections and oversight capabilities, and (c) share best practices with established allied and partner IGs.
Further, Army IGs of all components must also be prepared to help train allied and partner IGs to better conduct IG
functions as tasked by their respective commanders or ministers of defense, particularly when these functions mirror
U.S. Army IG policy. TIGS’s public website maintains updated exportable training packages for all Army IG functions
at https://tigs-online.ignet.army.mil/. Additionally, the school actively engages partner nations at the DAIG level by
hosting visiting international partner delegations and sharing with them the background, utility, and effectiveness of
an IG system within a nation's armed forces and the professionalism that characterizes a military force willing to
oversee its own readiness posture. Moreover, the school will continue to support the seating of international students
in the IG basic course in direct coordination with U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command’s (TRADOC’s) Secu-
rity and Assistance Training Field Activity (SATFA). (See para 4–2b (4), below.)
4–2. The U.S. Army Inspector General School
a. Mission and functions. TIGS (SAIG – TR) is the Army IG system’s primary resident training venue for qualify-
ing and professionally developing officers, WOs, NCOs, and Army Civilians to serve as Army IGs. The school’s
mission is to plan, program, budget, and execute resident, exportable training for officers, WOs, NCOs, and Civilians
designated or assigned to duties as an IG; to qualify prospective IGs to execute doctrinal IG functions in all operational
settings and then sustain those skills; and to write and promulgate Army IG policy and doctrine on behalf of
TIG. TIGS provides both initial (basic) IG qualification training and advanced training courses within the guidelines
established by AR 350 –1.
b. Requirements. The Commandant of TIGS determines the requirements for graduation from the basic IG qualifi-
cation course and the advanced course. The Commandant informs DTIG directly of all dismissal actions. TIG serves
as the appellate authority for students who are dismissed for failing to meet the school’s academic requirements as
outlined in the school’s academic program. The specific requirements for personnel attending the basic course are
as follows:
(1) All Army IG candidates selected as IGs or assistant IGs must graduate the basic IG qualification course at TIGS.
All students attending the basic course, either new IGs or former IGs returning for a subsequent IG assignment, must
complete all three weeks of the course and, upon graduation, will be fully qualified as Army IGs and may assume
IG duties. An abbreviated version of the basic course does not exist; only TIG may authorize any modifications to a
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 36
student's attendance at the basic course. The final step of the IG certification process occurs when the directing au-
thority or command IG administers the IG oath (see para 2 – 4, above).
(2) IG candidates will not perform IG functions until completing the IG certification process. IG candidates who
are awaiting attendance at the basic IG qualification course may serve in their assigned IG staff sections as
temporary assistant IGs and only within the authorities of that IG category. This rule also applies to mobilization day
(M-day) and troop program unit (TPU) Soldiers who normally face delays in attending the course.
(3) Army administrative support personnel, acting IGs, and IGs from the other Services and DOD agencies
may attend the IG basic course on a space-available basis.
(4) International students may attend the course if coordinated properly through TRADOC’s SATFA. Only SATFA
may coordinate with the registrar on behalf of an international student for a seat in the basic course. All international
students must successfully pass an English-language test upon arrival based upon standards set by the Commandant.
(5) Temporary assistant IGs serving (or planning to serve) in excess of 180 days must graduate the basic
IG qualification course (see para 2–2e(3)).
(6) All Army Civilian IGs must attend the IG advanced course every five years as part of CP 55 and as part of
functional training for all 1801-series personnel. Civilian IGs serving in IG or assistant IG positions but who are not
part of the 1801 series will also attend the advanced course every five years. Civilian IGs who fail to attend the IG
advanced course may be subject to decertification by TIG. The five-year standard is subject to seat availability in a
given FY. Civilian IGs will not be penalized if their attendance falls beyond the five-year standard because seats are
not available; those Civilians will receive seating priority for upcoming advanced courses. Officers and NCOs may
attend the IG advanced course based on seating allocations established and promulgated by the Commandant. The
ACOM, ASCC, and DRU command IGs will establish a nomination process within their respective commands or
organizations to fill these seating allocations. Since seats for military personnel at the advanced course are limited,
ACOM, ASCC, and DRU command IGs should fill the seating allocations with IGs who are strong performers and
who have served in their IG staff sections for at least one year. The IG advanced course is for Army IGs only. ANG
officers and NCOs serving in State IG offices may also attend the advanced course.
(7) Officers, WOs, NCOs, and Civilians who return to IG duty for a repetitive tour after a break of any duration
must attend the basic IG qualification course again, unless the Commandant of TIGS waives the requirement. The
Commandant grants all waivers on a case-by-case basis and considers such factors as duration of the break in IG duty,
previous IG experience, projected IG assignment, and recent changes in IG policy and doctrine. The IG advanced
course will not substitute for the basic course for those former IGs who must re-qualify following a break in IG duty.
(8) Regular Army, ARNG, and USAR officers or NCOs assigned to serve in a Joint IG position will attend DOD’s
Joint IG Course within 120 days of assignment. Joint IGs may attend the TIGS’s basic course if required by the
position’s duty description or requested in accordance with DODD 5106.04. The Commandant must first approve all
attendance requests or requirement justifications prior to seating a Joint IG in the basic course.
c. School Quotas and Registration. The registrar will maintain a schedule of all classes forecasted for a 12-month
period. The school normally conducts eight basic IG qualification courses and three advanced courses per year. After
coordination with the component quota managers, the Commandant will submit a program memorandum for both
basic and advanced course school quotas to G3/5/7 as required to ensure equitable distribution based on IG authori-
zations. In preparing the memorandum, the Commandant will also consider quotas for other service IGs working in
state Joint Force Headquarter IG offices and international partners. The Commandant must approve any deviations
from the program memorandum. Components will manage the class seat fill and priority of their designated quotas.
The Army IG School will manage the class seat fill and priority of Department of the Army (DA) Civilian quotas on
behalf of DAIG’s Operations and Support Division and in coordination with the components.
(1) The Regular Army and U.S. Army Reserve Active Guard Reserve. HRC will approve Army Training Require-
ments and Resources System (ATRRS) school reservations for Regular Army and USAR AGR Soldiers to TIGS after
approval of the nomination (see para 2– 4, above).
(2) The U.S. Army Reserve troop program unit. The USAR command IGs (or their staff sections) will submit re-
quests for class seats for USAR personnel directly to the USARC quota manager, who will approve the reservation
after approval of the nomination (see para 2 – 4, above).
(3) Command IGs. Command IGs or their staff sections will coordinate directly with the registrar at TIGS to register
newly hired Army Civilians to attend the next available class concurrent with a report to DAIG’s Operations and
Support Division. Civilians must be approved, vetted, and hired on before making an ATRRS reservation.
(4) Commandant. The Commandant, or Deputy Commandant in the Commandant’s absence, is the approval au-
thority for any attendance to TIGS without an approved nomination.
d. Student funding for The Army Inspector General School. Funding for students attending the basic or advanced
courses comes from a number of sources. Coordination for, and questions pertaining to funding for, a specific military
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 37
student should be directed to the component quota manager (HRC, NGB, USARC). For funding matters regarding
Civilians, contact the school’s registrar.
(1) Components will utilize their designated school/training funds to fund military attendance to TIGS’s basic and
advanced courses. These funds, however, do not cover the cost of rental cars; if the individual command determines
that the student requires a rental car, the command must fund it. The school will not fund rental cars under any cir-
cumstances. Lodging is centrally funded for military personnel attending the basic and advanced courses; local stu-
dents must follow the Joint Travel Regulation and local policy.
(2) TIGS will fund attendance at the basic course for all Army Civilians of all components hired into the Army IG
system. This funding does not include rental cars, and local students must adhere to the Joint Travel Regulation and
local policy.
(3) In accordance with AR 350 – 1, CP55 will execute Army Civilian Training, Education, and Development funds
for Civilians to attend the advanced course when funds are available. If CP55 funds are unavailable, commands will
fund their Civilians' attendance at the advanced course.
(4) Individual commands will fund acting IGs, temporary assistant IGs, and administrative support staff members
attending TIGS.
(5) Other services and Federal and non-Federal agencies will fund their personnel who attend TIGS. These non-
Army students will attend the school on a space-available basis and at the discretion of the Commandant or Deputy
Commandant.
(6) SATFA coordinates all funding for international students attending the basic course.
e. Readmission following dismissal. Students dismissed from the basic course for personal conduct or academic
reasons may return to a subsequent course only if they elect to appeal their dismissal and TIG approves that appeal.
The Commandant will notify the student’s command IG of the appeal results, and the gaining command IG (or direct-
ing authority if the appeal is from a command IG candidate) will make the final determination if the individual returns
to the course. If TIG disapproves the appeal, the student will not return to the course and will not be assigned as an
IG. Soldiers who are dismissed for failing to meet body-fat composition standards in accordance with AR 600 – 9 may
not appeal dismissal. If a Soldier who is dismissed for failing body-fat composition standards wants to return to the
course and be assigned as an IG, the Soldier (depending upon his or her component) must appeal in writing through
HRC, NGB, or USARC to TIG via DAIG’s Operations and Support Division (SAIG – OP) and provide from the gain-
ing command documentation attesting to the fact that he or she now meets the Army’s body-fat composition standards.
If TIG approves, DAIG’s Operations and Support Division will notify HRC, NGB, or USARC to reassign the Soldier
as an IG and schedule that Soldier in ATRRS for an upcoming IG basic course. If the student returns to the IG basic
course and again fails to meet the height and weight standards, the Commandant will immediately dismiss the student
from the course and notify TIG.
4–3. Other inspector general training
a. Acting inspectors general, temporary assistant Inspector Generals, and administrative support staff mem-
bers. Limited resources and space may prevent all categories of IGs from attending the basic IG qualification course
at TIGS. Therefore, command and State IGs will locally train acting IGs, temporary assistant IGs (serving less than
180 days), and administrative support staff members who are unable to attend the course on a space-available basis.
The training must reflect current IG policy and doctrine as promulgated by TIGS. See the paragraph on exportable
training packages below for IG training resources. Training programs for temporary assistant IGs do not require school
approval but must include, at a minimum, the basic IG concept and system, the IG tenet of confidentiality, and the
restrictions and limitations placed upon the use of IG records. The supervising IG must document in a memorandum
all training conducted for acting IGs, temporary assistant IGs, and administrative support staff members.
b. Exportable training packages. TIGS creates and maintains on its public website (https://tigs-
online.ignet.army.mil/) exportable training packages for each IG function to train acting IGs, temporary assistant IGs,
and administrative support staff members and to provide focused refresher training for serving IGs. Command IGs
may tailor these materials to meet the needs of the local command with assistance and guidance from the school as
necessary.
c. Unique Department of the Army Inspector General-level training requirements. DAIG’s Technical Inspections
Division (SAIG – TI), Cybersecurity Inspections Division (SAIG – CS), and Intelligence Oversight Division
(SAIG–IO) have unique training qualification requirements for individuals assigned to inspection responsibilities,
in addition to those requirements outlined in paragraph 2 – 4 and appendix B for IGs. Each division will establish,
coordinate, and oversee the fulfillment of these specific requirements and update the requirements as necessary. All
divisions require, at a minimum, on-the-job training programs that include observing and/or participating in one or
more inspections before becoming a qualified inspector.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 38
d. Teaching and training in technical channels. The IG staff sections with subordinate command IGs may routinely
sponsor training workshops to share ideas; clarify IG policy and doctrine; and receive guidance about the senior com-
mander’s priorities, philosophy, and so on. TIGS can assist with training materials and resources as required. Higher
echelon IG staff sections will also conduct routine staff assistance visits (SAVs) of subordinate command IG staff
sections as a way to mentor and assist those staff sections in conducting their daily responsibilities and activities (see
AR 1 – 201).
Chapter 5
The Inspector General Inspections Function
Section I
Broad Inspection Policy
5–1. Inspector general inspections—purpose and procedures
a. Inspections as an inspector general function. The IG inspections function is the primary IG function and the one
that allows IGs to have the greatest impact on readiness and warfighting capability throughout the Army. The primary
purpose of all IG inspections is to resolve systemic issues throughout the Army and, in doing so, to evaluate the
effectiveness of Army policies, determine the root causes of noncompliance, and recommend changes to policy pro-
ponents. IG support sustainable readiness by providing commanders with a unique capability to address malfunction-
ing systems, programs, and functions within the command. However, high operational tempo and deployment
demands may mean that IGs must temporarily shift the primary purpose of their inspections to more compliance-
based readiness assessments of individual organizations (see subparagraph 5–1e, below, for the types of inspections
IGs can conduct). Overall, the inspections function entails conducting IG inspections, developing and implementing
IG inspection programs, checking intelligence activities for policy compliance, and assisting the commander in main-
taining a viable OIP. All IG inspections will adhere to the Army inspection principles outlined in AR 1 – 201.
b. The Army’s functional systems and assessing readiness. The Army comprises a variety of functional systems
(training, logistics, maintenance, operations, force integration, personnel, and so on) that come together at various
echelons of command in order to ensure that our commands and the units that comprise these commands are fully
prepared to perform their wartime missions successfully. Commanders at all echelons constantly rely upon feedback
from personal observation, field training exercises, command post exercises, physical training tests, inspections
conducted as part of the OIP, and other evaluations to assess the readiness of these functional systems within the
context of the units they command in order to make an informed determination of their unit’s overall mission
readiness. Army Doctrine Publication 7 – 0 (ADP 7 – 0) describes this assessment as a continuous process that represents
the end and the beginning of the training management cycle. This assessment is part of each commander’s broader
organizational assessment as described in ADP 7 –0. IG inspections, which normally focus on larger problems associ-
ated with individual functional systems (known to IGs as systemic issues) contribute, under the umbrella of the OIP,
to the commander’s overall organizational assessment as one of many feedback sources for determining the com-
mand’s readiness.
c. Focus on systemic issues. Systemic issues normally involve functional systems such as personnel and logistics
and tend to surface through a general pattern of noncompliance throughout the various echelons of a command.
The problems are often beyond the ability of local commanders to solve, indicating a potential issue with the system,
function, or program. The IG’s mission is to identify and model the system and then to focus on the problem areas
affecting the system’s smooth functioning. These problem areas normally result in a pattern of noncompliance
throughout the command. These suspected problem areas help the IG, after conducting thorough research, to isolate
specific areas of concern within the system, which in turn lead to the development of clear inspection objectives.
The IG can then gather information focused on answering those objectives and determine the root causes behind the
noncompliance difficulties. These root causes lead to recommendations that, when implemented, will solve the prob-
lems identified by the objectives and fix the system so that it functions smoothly.
d. Inspection selections process. Inspectors general will use a deliberate process to identify, evaluate, and
set priorities for potential inspections of systemic and other issues for approval by the directing authority and inclusion
in the OIP's IG inspection program. IGs will consider the selection process outlined in The Inspections Guide, which
is available on TIGS’s website at https://tigs-online.ignet.army.mil/. IGs should reasonably expect to complete at least
four inspections of systemic issues a year, but the size of the IG staff section and the commander’s priorities will
ultimately determine the number of inspections conducted.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 39
e. Inspection types and focus. Inspections may focus on either organizations, functional systems, or both. IGs may
conduct three types of inspections: general, special, and follow-up. Inspections that focus on organizations or units
and are comprehensive in nature are considered general inspections. General inspections are compliance-oriented
and assume that the standards against which the IG measures the organization are correct as written.
Inspections that focus on functional systems (that is, systemic issues) are special inspections. The primary focus for
IG inspections is the special inspection, since command and staff inspections already focus on organizations (see AR
1 – 201). Special IG inspections of systemic issues do not assume that the established standards are correct; instead,
IGs consider the possibility that the problem with the system may stem from outdated or ineffective standards or
policies. The payoff derived from systemic inspections has a broader, more widespread impact within the directing
authority’s organization. The final type of inspection—the follow-up—assesses the implementation of solutions rec-
ommended by an approved IG inspection and, although listed as the third inspection type, is normally the
final step of all IG inspections.
f. Fundamental guidelines. All IG inspections will adhere to certain fundamental guidelines in addition to
the inspection principles outlined in AR 1 –201. All IG inspections will—
(1) Identify patterns of noncompliance (systemic issues), determine the magnitude of the deficiencies centered on
those patterns, and seek the root causes of all identified problem areas.
(2) Make recommendations that identify proponents and responsibilities for corrective action.
(3) Verify the implementation of those recommendations.
(4) Teach systems, processes, and procedures.
(5) Spread innovative ideas.
(6) Train those inspected and, as appropriate, those conducting the inspection.
g. Inspectors general and the organizational inspection program. IGs will develop and implement their IG inspec-
tion programs as part of the command’s OIP in accordance with the commander’s guidance and AR 1 – 201. Inspectors
general have specific responsibilities with regard to the OIP as outlined in AR 1 –201. These responsibilities
complement the policy on IG inspections outlined in this regulation.
(1) An IG may participate as a member of a command inspection team only for the purpose of inspecting
a subordinate command’s IG staff section; to perform an intelligence oversight inspection; or, if appointed as the OIP
coordinator in accordance with paragraph 2–7b, to assess the OIP’s effectiveness in the organization. Although ac-
companying the rest of the command inspection team, the IG will be conducting an IG inspection. Likewise, the results
will remain protected as IG records (see chap 3, below) and will appear under separate cover to the inspecting com-
mander, who is also the IG’s directing authority. The results will not be included as a part of the overall command
inspection report.
(2) An IG may not lead or participate in non-IG staff inspections or staff inspection programs. An IG,
however, may accompany staff members conducting staff inspections for the purpose of advising inspected staff agen-
cies on the proper development and conduct of their OIPs.
(3) An IG may participate as a member of another command’s IG inspection team.
(4) Army IGs may participate in Joint IG inspections with combatant command IGs, Joint task force (JTF) IGs,
Combat Support Agency IGs, and DOD IGs consistent with Army ACOM, ASCC, or DRU authorities and responsi-
bilities as outlined in AR 10 – 87 and other operational directives issued by the Joint Staff.
h. The inspections process. Detailed doctrinal guidelines for preparing, executing, and completing IG inspections
appear in The Inspections Guide. IGs will use the three-phased, 17-step process outlined in the guide to conduct IG
inspections of all types, even though the guide’s focus is on special IG inspections of systemic issues. This process
adheres to the five inspection principles outlined in AR 1 –201 and ensures that IGs throughout the IG system consist-
ently apply a methodical, thorough approach when preparing, executing, and completing IG inspections. The process,
as outlined in The Inspections Guide, represents IG doctrine and is authoritative in nature; IGs may shape, tailor, and
adapt the techniques and steps therein to compress inspections in order to meet the commander’s guidance and needs
while still preserving the integrity of the IG inspections process across the Army. The only prescriptive provisions
to the process appear below—
(1) Preparation phase (Step 3, commander approves the concept). All IGs will obtain a written directive from the
directing authority before conducting an IG inspection. This directive authorizes the IG to inspect any Army unit
assigned within the command. IGs may inspect units of another command as long as prior coordination at the com-
mand level has occurred and that coordination is captured in the inspection directive. Outside the continental United
States (OCONUS) ACOM, ASCC, and DRU IGs, with prior approval, may inspect tenant activities of another ACOM,
ASCC, or DRU if located within their geographic area of responsibility.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 40
(2) Execution phase (Step 10, analyze results/crosswalk). All IG inspections must end with a written report in nar-
rative form that the IG provides to the directing authority and others as necessary (see para 5 – 2, below, and
para 2–2c in AR 1 – 201).
(3) Completion phase (Step 15, hand-off). When approved recommendations are beyond the ability of the inspected
command to implement, either the IG or the commander will transfer those recommendations through IG technical or
command channels to the appropriate command echelon or agency for corrective action in a process called hand-off.
(a) If the commander chooses to conduct hand-off through command channels, he or she will normally do
so through the operations staff section. The IG’s role in this case is to monitor the process and stay informed of any
action taken as part of the IG’s follow-up responsibilities.
(b) If the commander directs the IG to conduct the a hand-off through IG technical channels, the IG will send the
recommendation (or recommendations) up through vertical IG technical channels to the ACOM, ASCC, or DRU IG
for action as required. If a subordinate IG’s command or the ACOM, ASCC, or DRU IG’s command can implement
the recommendation, then that command will do so and report completion to the originating IG staff section. If DAIG
must receive the hand-off because the ACOM, ASCC, DRU, or another command in the vertical chain could not
implement the recommendation, the recommendation involves DA action and is of a magnitude requiring Armywide
action, the proponent is at the HQDA level, or the recommendation requires action outside DA, then the ACOM,
ASCC, or DRU IG will forward the hand-off request to DAIG’s Analysis and Inspections Follow-up Office
(SAIG–AI). The Analysis and Inspections Follow-up Office will ensure that the recommendation is staffed appropri-
ately within DAIG, forwarded to the appropriate proponent or staff agency in HQDA, and tracked appropriately. IGs
will forward hand-offs involving technical inspections of nuclear, biological, and chemical program and intelligence
oversight to the Analysis and Inspections Follow-up Office through DAIG’s Technical Inspections Division
(SAIG–TI) and Intelligence Oversight Division (SAIG – IO), respectively.
(4) Completion phase (Step 17, follow-up). All IGs will followup each inspection in one of the following ways:
calling or visiting the staff agencies or individuals charged with implementing the recommendations (known as the
proponents) to determine if the tasks are complete; checking with the tasking authority to determine if the proponents
have closed out the taskers; or, if necessary, conducting a full re-inspection of the topic. The commander may require
that each individual or staff agency charged with a corrective action reply in writing by memorandum once the task is
complete. The IG’s role in this case would be to review the memorandums as part of IG followup activities
(a memorandum is not normally required for IG inspections unless specifically directed by the directing authority).
i. Scheduling inspections. When scheduling IG inspections, IGs will follow the principles and procedures outlined
in ADP 7 – 0 and Army Doctrine Reference Publication 7 – 0 (ADRP 7 – 0). Unanticipated events may cause the com-
mander to deviate from the published inspection plan by rescheduling planned inspections or initiating an unscheduled
special inspection. Command, staff, and IG inspections involving designated units may occur simultaneously if
their combined scheduling allows the commander to adhere to the inspection principles outlined in AR 1 – 201
and meet other operational imperatives.
j. Disseminating good news and lessons learned. Innovative ideas, good news, positive trends, and lessons learned
must receive the same emphasis in IG inspections as identifying and correcting deficiencies. Findings in IG
inspection reports should not be limited to pointing out problem areas but will also be positive in nature when the
information supports such findings. In cases where recognizing innovative ideas and good news requires that the IG
identify a unit or an individual, the IG may do so but only as part of an out-briefing to an inspected commander and
with the further caveat that the commander cannot use such attributed information to compare, reward, or evaluate
individuals or units. The written IG report will not contain names of individual units for this purpose. Revealing such
sources allows units to know precisely where to find examples of successful behavior within the organization so that
other units or individuals may emulate that success and know where to go for advice on how to improve areas that
require improvement.
k. Release of information during out-briefings. IGs may not release attributed information to commanders, staff
members, or proponents during out-briefings except for information provided in accordance with the good news pro-
vision listed in paragraph j, above. Out-briefings to commanders and their staff members immediately following an
inspection visit should focus only on IG findings and not the sources of the information. Likewise, proponent out-
briefings will only include the IG findings and recommendations and not the sources of that information. IGs may
leave a hard copy version of these out-briefings with the command.
l. Discovering breaches of integrity, security, or safety during inspections. If an IG discovers serious deficiencies
involving breaches of integrity, security violations, or criminal behavior, the IG will consult the supporting SJA, the
USACIDC, the command security officer, or the provost marshal, as appropriate, to determine a recommended course
of action. The IG will inform the commander directing the inspection of a recommended course of action or choose
to initiate an investigative inquiry if necessary. The IG will notify the appropriate subordinate commander so that the
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 41
commander may initiate immediate corrective action. If the IG discovers a serious safety deficiency with potential
immediate negative impact during the course of gathering information from units, the IG will present that
information directly to the applicable commander, complete with all the necessary attribution.
m. Compressed inspections. Periods of high operational tempo, normally found in a deployed or wartime environ-
ment, may cause the IG to compress certain steps in the IG inspections process in order to provide rapid feedback that
allows the commander to make informed decisions quickly. The key to compressing the IG inspections process is to
avoid putting the validity of the findings and recommendations at risk. In these situations where swift completion of
the inspection is critical, the IG, in coordination with the directing authority, must identify the purpose and scope of
the inspection and choose carefully which steps to compress or omit. When directed to conduct a compressed inspec-
tion, the IG must brief the directing authority on the associated risk of compressing the inspections process. For ex-
ample, the IG will voice any concerns if the inspection team does not have ample time for research, development of
the inspection plan, and train-up during the preparation phase of the inspection. Also, if a lack of time compels the IG
to contact a very small number of units or individuals to gather information, the commander will recognize that the
findings may not fully represent what is actually occurring within the command. The five guiding principles
for deciding which steps the IG may compress or omit in the inspections process appear in AR 1 – 201. The Inspections
Guide also provides further doctrinal guidance on compressed inspections.
5–2. Inspector general inspection reports
a. Purpose and nature of inspection reports. The purpose of written IG inspection reports is to provide a record for
followup inspections and trends analysis. IGs will only write fully anonymized inspection reports; in other words, the
report will automatically omit all sources of information such as names and units (unless the report is the result of a
general, compliance-oriented inspection). This approach allows for widest dissemination of the report by the local
IG and prevents anyone from using the report to reward, punish, or compare individuals or their units.
b. Report distribution. The IG will make a copy of the report available to the directing authority. Based on the
directing authority’s guidance, the IG may distribute the report as necessary to staff agencies, proponents,
other commands, higher and lower echelon IG staff sections, and so on. IGs must also provide a list of all approved
IG inspection reports to the ACOM, ASCC, or DRU and TIG on a quarterly basis as follows: 1 January, 1 April, 1
July, and 1 October. Send all lists directly to DAIG’s Information Resource Management Division (SAIG – IR) at the
following email address: usarmy.pentagon.hqda-otig.list.webmaster@mail.mil and include the inspection title, the
date of the inspection report, the IG office that conducted the inspection, and contact information for the IG office
(see AR 1 – 201). The IG inspection reports of NG activities, directed by an authority other than the State AG, will be
provided to the IG, NGB, and to the State command IG. If the report contains—or may contain—sensitive information,
then the commander or IG must contact DAIG’s Records-Release Office for dissemination guidance.
c. Recommendations. IG inspection reports will identify significant problems involving readiness and unacceptable
security risk in the form of findings. With the exception of reports of IG technical and intelligence oversight inspec-
tions, reports will provide recommended solutions for the findings based on an analysis of the root causes and
fix responsibility for correcting identified deficiencies.
d. Ratings. IGs will not use ratings such as satisfactory or unsatisfactory to rate individual units. The use of such
ratings suggests a quality judgment by the IG that is inappropriate and that compromises the IG’s fair and impartial
status. The only exceptions to this guidance are for DAIG-level technical inspections, DAIG-level cybersecurity in-
spections, DAIG-level intelligence oversight inspections of SAPs and sensitive activities, and CID technical inspec-
tions of investigative practices and sub-programs.
e. Use of inspection reports. IG inspection reports will not be used to compare units or organizations or as criteria
for competitive unit awards. Inspection results will not be used to reward, punish, or compare commanders, individu-
als, or their units.
f. Confidentiality considerations. Protecting the anonymity of units and individuals enhances the IG’s reputation as
a fair and impartial fact-finder and trusted agent. Confidentiality remains a priority; however, IGs cannot guarantee
confidentiality during an inspection. An IG normally writes IG inspection reports in redacted form only; names of
individuals or units never appear in the reports except as an annex or appendix. However, situations may arise when
an IG must identify a specific source of information in order to fix problems or to ensure that assistance is provided
(usually in reports for general, compliance-oriented inspections). In those instances, the IG must inform the individuals
or unit commanders that their identities will appear in the inspection report and then explain why such action is nec-
essary. This explanation will help maintain the credibility and integrity of the IG system. In these cases, distribution
of the final inspection report is severely limited (in many cases, the report only goes to the commander as directing
authority), and the IG must caution the recipients of the report that they cannot use information linked to
any individuals or units to evaluate, reward, compare, or punish those individuals or organizations.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 42
Section II
Intelligence Oversight Inspections
5–3. Intelligence oversight inspections—purpose and procedures
a. The intelligence oversight role. All IGs throughout the Army will conduct intelligence oversight inspections of
intelligence components and activities conducting foreign intelligence (to include any intelligence disciplines) or
counterintelligence within their commands. Intelligence oversight inspections are a requirement for all IGs, and these
inspections will be part of the IG inspection program within the command’s OIP. Because a command’s OIP consists
of a variety of inspections, including external inspections, the command IG may accomplish the IO inspection by
participating in or conducting a joint inspection with another element, as long as the IG is able to fulfill the require-
ments of this regulation and AR 381 – 10, such as determining if intelligence elements are conducting activities in
compliance with policies, ascertaining whether any other elements of the command not specifically identified as an
Army intelligence element are conducting intelligence activities, evaluating leadership awareness of IO and intelli-
gence authorities, ensuring there is a process for reporting questionable intelligence activities, providing advice to the
commander and IO officer, and providing IO program execution feedback and recommendations to TIG via DAIG’s
Intelligence Oversight Division (SAIG – IO). This section, used with AR 381 – 10, DODD 5148.13, DODM 5240.01,
and Executive Order 12333 as amended, provides guidance for the conduct of intelligence oversight inspections. The
Intelligence Oversight Guide, available from TIGS’s website at https://tigs-online.ignet.army.mil/, outlines the doc-
trine for conducting intelligence oversight inspections. This guide also includes the Army G-2’s checklist for intelli-
gence oversight inspections.
b. The purpose of intelligence oversight inspections. Intelligence oversight is the responsibility of intelligence com-
ponents or those activities that undertake intelligence activities. The purpose of IG intelligence oversight inspections
is to provide oversight and verify that intelligence components and activities are complying with appropriate laws,
executive orders, and policy with an emphasis on ensuring that these components and activities perform their
authorized intelligence functions in a manner that protects the constitutional rights of U.S. persons.
c. Inspection approach and methodology. Intelligence oversight inspections are general, or compliance-oriented,
inspections. A sample methodology is outlined in The Intelligence Oversight Guide. The three-phased, 17-step IG
inspections process outlined in The Inspections Guide still applies but with a different approach and methodology.
Executive Order 12333 and AR 381 – 10 set forth 15 procedures that enable all DOD intelligence components to carry
out their authorized functions while ensuring that any activities that affect U.S. persons are carried out in a manner
that protects the constitutional rights and privacy of such persons. Procedure 14 requires each intelligence component
to familiarize its personnel with the provisions of Executive Order 12333, AR 381– 10, and applicable implementing
instructions. Procedure 15 requires both the intelligence components and IGs to report violations of any governing
intelligence regulation to DAIG’s Intelligence Oversight Division (SAIG – IO) within 5 days. These violations are
termed questionable intelligence activities. Since Procedure 15 reports are nonpunitive in nature, they do not place the
IG in a dilemma by reporting information that might be used for adverse purposes (unless the violation is criminal in
nature). Procedure 15 reports are not IG records and are not subject to IG records-release procedures. IGs will forward
all Procedure 15 reports directly to DAIG’s Intelligence Oversight Division at The U.S. Army Inspector General
Agency (SAIG – IO), 1700 Army Pentagon, Room 5C559, Washington, DC 20310 – 1700 or by email at the following
addresses: NIPR: usarmy.pentagon.hqda-otig.mesg.saig-io-office@mail.mil or SIPR: usarmy.pentagon.hqda-
otig.mesg.saig-io-office@mail.smil.mil.
d. Inspection frequency. The commander’s OIP will normally determine the frequency of intelligence oversight
inspections within the command. However, IGs at all levels will ensure that they inspect their intelligence components
a minimum of once every 2 years.
5–4. Army headquarters-level intelligence oversight inspections
a. Department of the Army Inspector General-level intelligence oversight inspections. DAIG’s Intelligence Over-
sight Division conducts general, compliance-oriented inspections of Army intelligence activities in accordance with
AR 381 – 10 and applicable intelligence regulations with an emphasis on the integration of intelligence oversight in
daily operations.
b. Special Access Programs and sensitive activity inspections. DAIG’s Intelligence Oversight Division conducts
general, compliance-oriented inspections of SAPs and sensitive activities in accordance with AR 380 – 381 and other
applicable policy. Inspections are scheduled on a recurring basis in coordination with the Army Special Programs
Directorate, Army Audit Agency, and affected commands. Inspections evaluate managerial procedures and practices
pertaining to operations, personnel, materiel, financial management, and secure-environment contracting; assess the
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 43
security of SAPs, sensitive activities, and alternate compensatory control measures; and identify issues, situations, or
circumstances that affect SAP and sensitive activity mission performance. DAIG’s Intelligence Oversight Division
enters findings resulting from these inspections into the Management Control Resolution Process and evaluates them
quarterly for closure. The Director of the Army staff is briefed annually on progress made during the year to resolve
issues and correct deficiencies identified in these inspections.
c. Inspections of the Research, Development, and Engineering Centers, laboratories, and test facilities. DAIG’s
Intelligence Oversight Division conducts general, compliance-oriented inspections of selected Army Research, De-
velopment, and Engineering Centers, laboratories, and test facilities on a 4-year rotational basis. A memorandum of
understanding with the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Laboratories and Basic Science and the
DODIG establishes guidance for these inspections.
Section III
Technical Inspections
5–5. Technical inspections—purpose and procedures
DAIG’s Technical Inspections Division (SAIG – TI) conducts general, compliance-oriented, technical inspections of
chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and other technical operations as required by regulations and directing
authorities. The majority of the division’s inspections are of organizations required to comply with the Army’s nuclear
and chemical surety programs and biological select agents and toxins (BSAT) biosafety and biosecurity programs.
These inspections are both announced and unannounced. The division will also conduct special inspections of non-
surety chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and ammunition operations or other technical inspections as
directed by the Army Secretariat, TIG, or senior Army leadership. The division may conduct unannounced or special
technical investigations as deemed necessary by the Army Secretariat, TIG, or senior Army leadership. Any IGs with
questions or issues concerning technical inspections or investigations must contact DAIG’s Technical Inspections
Division for guidance.
5–6. Sensitive activity inspections
a. Purpose and objective. Sensitive activity inspections conducted by DAIG’s Technical Inspections Division as-
sess the adequacy of procedures for organizations, facilities, and activities having nuclear and chemical surety mis-
sions and BSAT biosafety and biosecurity missions. Management evaluations inquire into the nuclear, chemical, and
BSAT management functions and responsibilities of Army organizations, facilities, and activities to determine man-
agement, systemic, or functional problem areas. In general, sensitive activity inspections examine the functional areas
specified in the 50- series Army regulations (see table 5– 1, below) and identify systemic issues within the Army as
appropriate. The objectives of these inspections and evaluations are to—
(1) Ensure the personnel reliability, security, and accountability of positive control materials and the personnel
reliability, safety, security, and accountability of special nuclear material.
(2) Ensure adherence to approved chemical technical, health, safety, accountability, security, reliability, environ-
mental, and demilitarization standards and procedures involving sensitive activity operations.
(3) Ensure adherence to approved biological technical, health, safety, accountability, security, and reliability stand-
ards and procedures involving sensitive activity operations.
(4) Determine the adequacy of support and guidance provided to each organization conducting sensitive activity
operations.
(5) Determine and pursue systemic issues affecting the commander’s capability to perform his or her
assigned sensitive activity mission.
(6) Provide ACOMs, ASCCs, DRUs, and PEOs or PMs with inspection results for use in their OIP or
surety programs to assist in determining the status of a unit’s nuclear, chemical agent, and biological sensitive activity
mission capability.
(7) Keep Army leaders and appropriate authorities informed of the status of the Army’s nuclear, chemical, and
biological sensitive activity programs.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 44
Table 5–1
Sensitive activity inspections—Continued
Technical inspection category Inspection scope
Nuclear surety inspection - Communications security management
- Personnel reliability
- Special-interest items
- External support
Reactor facility inspections - Personnel reliability
Chemical surety inspections - Mission operations
- Security
- Safety
- Surety management
- Emergency response
- Medical support
- External support
Biological inspections - Mission operations
- Security
- Safety and occupational health
- Personnel reliability
- Emergency response
- Medical support
- External support
Nontraditional agent inspections - Mission operations
- Security
- Safety
- Personnel reliability management
- Emergency response
- Demilitarization operations
- Medical support
- External support
b. Inspection jurisdiction for the Technical Inspections Division. DAIG’s Technical Inspections Division
(SAIG–TI) conducts scheduled and unannounced nuclear surety inspections, reactor facility inspections, chemical
surety inspections (CSIs), BSAT biosafety and biosecurity inspections, radiation safety, and associated management
evaluations of affected commands and organizations throughout the Army. The CSIs and BSAT inspections of organ-
izations having management responsibility for administering Army contracts involving Army- or DOD-supplied
chemical agents or biological select agents and toxins will include an assessment of the contract oversight program.
The division will also conduct as required periodic and unannounced technical inspections of specific operations that
do not fall within the normal CSI, BSAT inspection, nuclear surety inspection, and reactor facility inspection window.
The purpose of these inspections is to validate corrective actions or to inspect technical operations where
routine scheduling is not possible, such as those operations conducted by mobile or short-term destruction operations.
Inspected activities, ACOMs, ASCCs, and DRUs will follow inspection report requirements and issue-resolution pro-
cesses in the 50-series Army regulations and other applicable standards.
5–7. Technical Inspections Division special inspections
DAIG’s Technical Inspections Division will conduct special inspections of non-surety chemical, biological, radiolog-
ical, nuclear, and ammunition operations or other technical inspections as directed by the Army Secretariat, TIG, or
senior Army leadership. The division will conduct these inspections in accordance with The Inspections Guide and
coordinate these special inspections with the respective command IGs when available.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 45
Section IV
Cybersecurity Inspections
5–8. Cybersecurity inspections—purpose and procedures
a. Inspectors general and cybersecurity. DAIG’s Cybersecurity Inspections Division (SAIG – CS) conducts cyber-
security inspections at the direction of the Secretary of the Army; conducts annual assessments as required by 44 USC
3555; and conducts cybersecurity inspections as required annually by other regulatory programs throughout all com-
ponents of the Army. The Cybersecurity Inspections Division will collect and report cybersecurity metrics in order to
identify systemic issues and report their root causes. When inspecting systemic issues, the division will adhere to the
three-phased, 17-step IG inspections process outlined in The Inspections Guide. IGs at all levels may inspect cyber-
security within their commands using a special inspection (or systemic) approach to reinforce the cybersecurity pro-
gram or to examine continuing patterns of cybersecurity noncompliance. Cybersecurity is a readiness issue, and IGs
at all levels must assist their commands in improving or maintaining the command’s cybersecurity posture. This sec-
tion, used with AR 25 – 2 and other DOD and Army policies, provides standards for conducting cybersecurity inspec-
tions at the local IG and DAIG levels.
b. Purpose and objectives of cybersecurity inspections. DAIG’s Cybersecurity Inspections Division conducts in-
spections that provide the Army senior leadership with information about the Army’s compliance with, and effective-
ness of, cybersecurity-related statutes and policies. Cybersecurity is a strategic enabler for effective operations in
cyberspace and has a profound impact on the Army’s ability to continue Army missions and operations under any
cyber situation or condition. In accordance with AR 25 – 2 and other applicable cybersecurity guidance, commanders
are responsible for managing cybersecurity resources and implementing and enforcing cybersecurity policy. Com-
manders must also appoint cybersecurity personnel to provide technical and administrative oversight of the com-
mand’s cybersecurity program. Command IGs are not part of this structure but must coordinate with the command’s
cybersecurity personnel to determine readiness trends that may warrant a special IG inspection of the program. DAIG’s
Cybersecurity Inspections Division conducts general inspections of cybersecurity programs throughout the Army to
provide a strategic perspective that strengthens the Army's cybersecurity readiness posture. Commanders may task
command IGs to conduct compliance or special cybersecurity inspections to verify or validate cybersecurity trends
within the command. The objectives of these internal IG inspections (part of the OIP) are to—
(1) Improve the cybersecurity readiness and posture of the command’s cybersecurity program.
(2) Determine adherence to DOD and Army cyber policy, guidelines, and standards designed to reduce risk to DOD
and Army missions and operations.
(3) Determine and pursue systemic issues affecting the command’s cybersecurity posture.
(4) Inform commanders of the status of their cybersecurity programs.
5–9. Cybersecurity inspection follow-up procedures
DAIG’s Cybersecurity Inspections Division, in coordination with DAIG’s Analysis and Inspections Follow-up Office,
will coordinate all DAIG cybersecurity follow-up actions using the cybersecurity plan of action and milestones. The
plan of action and milestones capture all findings from cybersecurity inspections and recommended corrective actions
for eliminating or mitigating the related shortcoming.
5–10. Annual cybersecurity report
Following the completion of each FY’s cybersecurity inspection cycle, DAIG’s Cybersecurity Inspections Division
produces an annual cybersecurity report for the Army’s senior leadership. It summarizes findings by DAIG and other
cybersecurity inspection stakeholders for the FY, identifies cybersecurity trends and systemic issues at the Army level,
and formulates a way ahead for the following year. The Cybersecurity Inspections Division distributes the report to
ACOMs, ASCCs, DRUs, command IGs, and other stakeholders as required. The report is posted on the IGNET home
page in the reports section for the Cybersecurity Inspections Division.
Chapter 6
The Inspector General Assistance Function
6–1. Inspector general assistance—purpose and procedures
a. Assistance as an inspector general function. Assistance is the IG function that provides Soldiers, Family
members, Army Civilians, retirees, and contract employees the ability to seek help from the IG on matters affecting
their health, welfare, and personal readiness. However, anyone may submit a complaint, allegation, or request for
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 46
information or assistance to any Army IG concerning a matter of Army interest. The IG’s role, as the
commander’s representative, is to resolve these issues within the limits of the IG system. Complaints often contain
both issues and allegations, but the assistance function focuses IGs on resolving only the issues. By definition, an issue
is a complaint, request for information, or request for assistance presented or referred to the IG. These issues do not
identify someone by name as the violator of a standard. However, someone identified by name with an impropriety
results in an allegation. See chapter 7 for specific policy guidance on how to identify and resolve allegations. All
complaints presented to an IG containing either issues or allegations (or both) are termed IGARs. When a
complaint contains both issues and allegations, the IG will determine if the issue or allegation is appropriate for IG
action and will perform the proper steps depending upon the commander’s decision.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 47
Figure 6–1. Sample permanent notice memorandum of the rights of Soldiers to present complaints
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 48
Figure 6–2. Sample permanent notice memorandum of the rights of Civilian employees to present complaints
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 49
Figure 6–2. Sample permanent notice memorandum of the rights of Civilian employees to present complaints—Continued
b. Command redress. As a general rule, IGs will encourage the Soldier or Civilian employee to discuss any issues,
allegations, or requests for assistance first with the commander, chain of command, or supervisor as provided in AR
600 – 20. Allowing the chain of command to handle the matter underscores the chain of command’s importance and
credibility. If the complainant agrees to take an allegation to the chain of command first, and the IG is fully aware of
the nature of that allegation, then the IG will follow-up with the complainant within five days to ensure that the
individual presented it to the chain of command. If the complainant chose not to bring the allegation to the chain of
command’s attention, the IG will then accept the allegation into the IG system and refer it to the command or resolve
it within the IG system as directed by the appropriate directing authority. If the IG refers it to the command, the IG
will notify the complainant. IGs will reinforce the chain of command and be careful not to undermine it by simply
accepting an IGAR without first asking if the complainant notified the chain of command. When appropriate, IGs will
direct Soldiers and Army Civilian employees to the appropriate avenue of redress. Also, IGs will limit their involve-
ment to teaching and training and a due-process review in matters that have established redress procedures. Once a
Soldier or Civilian employee has used an established redress process but is still unsatisfied that he or she has received
due process, a due-process review by the IG is appropriate to ensure that all steps were followed in accordance with
established Army policy.
c. Jurisdiction. Army IGs will provide assistance on an area basis so that anyone may go to the nearest IG staff
section for help or information. In the absence of a memorandum of agreement, memorandum of understanding, or
support agreement between the commands and agencies involved or affected, the requirement to provide support on
an area basis ensures IG coverage for routine assistance matters on local Army issues that the local IG is best suited
to resolve. Routine assistance matters involving local issues presented by personnel from Army organizations without
assigned IGs, routine assistance matters involving local elements of Army organizations without assigned IGs, and
routine assistance matters involving local issues presented by personnel at locations geographically separated from
their command IG fall within the scope and intent of these provisions for area support. In all cases, IGs will determine
which commander has the authority to resolve the issue. The IG will inform the complainant that if the issue falls
within the jurisdiction of another commander and IG, then that IG must resolve the issue. The IG will then offer the
complainant the option to address the issue directly with the IG who has jurisdiction over the matter or to refer the
matter to that IG on the complainant’s behalf. The IG will ensure that the complainant has all necessary contact infor-
mation for the appropriate IG staff section. An IG will use technical channels to coordinate efforts, resolve cases, or
resolve concerns regarding IG jurisdiction. DAIG’s Assistance Division (SAIG – AC) is the final authority for
resolving jurisdictional issues. If necessary, DAIG will address systemic issues involving those Army organizations
without an IG and coordinate inspections or investigative actions as necessary.
d. The Inspector General action process. IGs will use the 7-step Inspector General Action Process (IGAP) outlined
in The Assistance and Investigations Guide to perform IG assistance in all components of the Army. The guide is
available on TIGS’s website at https://tigs-online.ignet.army.mil/. The process outlined in the guide represents IG
doctrine and is authoritative in nature; IGs may shape, tailor, and adapt the techniques and steps therein as
necessary. The IG functions of assistance and investigations share the IGAP, so many IGs receiving complaints
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 50
containing both issues and allegations often perform both functions concurrently. When resolving issues, IGs will rely
on the assistance inquiry, which is part of Step 4, conduct IG factfinding, of the IGAP to address or respond to a
request for help or information. Timely and thorough assistance inquiries provide the basis for responding to the
complainant’s issues and for correcting underlying deficiencies in Army procedures and systems. Unlike the more
formal procedures used for investigations and investigative inquiries (see chap 7), the IG determines the best way to
conduct the assistance inquiry. The prescriptive provisions to the process appear below—
(1) Step 1, receive the inspector general action request.
(a) The IG may receive complaints or requests for assistance in any form, such as by telephone, in-person, or by
letter. When feasible, the complainant should submit the request using DA Form 1559 (Inspector General Action
Request). The IG will use DA Form 1559 as the primary intake document in order to explain the Privacy Act and the
consent elections that appear on the form to the complainant. While DA Form 1559 serves to inform, document, and
facilitate receiving the IGAR, neither the complainant nor the IG is required to complete the DA Form 1559 in order
for the IG to resolve the complaint or request for information. However, in all cases, the IG will enter all complaints
or requests for assistance presented to the IG into the IGARS database. By entering this data into IGARS, the IG is
completing an Electronic Case Form that contains all information related to the complaint or request for assistance.
The IG will also upload into IGARS the complaint and all supporting information (DA Form 1559, documents, pho-
tographs, recordings, and so forth). When completed, the Electronic Case Form in IGARS becomes the base-control
form for the complaint or request for assistance and is not releasable to the complainant or outside IG channels in any
format. IGs may provide the complainant with a copy of his or her DA Form 1559 provided that it has not been
stamped or marked with the IG standard classification.
(b) IGs will explain to all complainants the IG tenet of confidentiality; the PA; the election to consent or not consent
to the release within DOD channels documents provided to the IG; the requirement for a document release form; and,
if an allegation is part of the complaint, the false-charge statement. The IG will then document this discussion in
the case notes contained in the IGARS database.
(c) IGs will not make promises or commitments to complainants except to say that the IG will look into the matter.
(2) Step 2, conduct inspector general preliminary analysis.
(a) IGs will acknowledge the receipt of all IGARs. The IG must acknowledge in writing all IGARS containing
allegations. IGs must acknowledge all other IGARs either verbally or in writing and record the acknowledgement
in the case file. Acknowledgements do not apply to anonymous complaints.
(b) IGs will analyze each complaint for issues, allegations, and systemic problems as well as the complaint’s po-
tential for embarrassment or adverse impact on the command, such as readiness, discipline, morale, efficiency, and so
forth.
(c) IGs receiving anonymous complaints forwarded through congressional channels will acknowledge receipt to
the originating MC when appropriate (see para 6–1f(1), below).
(d) An IG who receives the same complaint already submitted to an MC will inform the complainant in writing that
the final response will come from the MC and not the IG. If the originating MC is no longer in office, the incumbent
MC will provide the response. DAIG’s Assistance Division will respond to the MC (see para 6–1f(1), below).
(e) The IG will inform the complainant that the final response will contain only the information that directly and
personally affects the complainant.
(f) IGs will explain to third-party complaint initiators that any response to them is subject to the intended complain-
ant's desire to release information, except when the information is released pursuant to a PA exception.
(g) IGs will provide an interim response to complainants when the final response will be significantly delayed due
to operational demands, complexity of the case, or the receipt of additional information. IGs will provide interim
responses every 90 days until the matter is resolved and the case is closed.
(h) IGs will acknowledge—principally through the IGARS database—all IGARs referred by another IG.
(i) An IG who receives IGARs concerning subordinate or other commands will inform the complainant that the IG
will refer the issues and/or allegations to the appropriate command to allow that command the opportunity to resolve
the matters. If the complainant objects, the IG will request a reason for the objection, consult DAIG’s Assistance
Division, and determine the appropriate IG office to resolve the matter. In all cases, however, the IG will notify the
complainant that the case will be resolved at an appropriate level in accordance with IG policy.
(j) The IG receiving the IGAR will always open a case and upload all supporting information (including the com-
pleted consent to release form) in the IGARS database (unless the information is classified) after determining all issues
and allegations and their appropriateness for IG action.
(k) IGs will use the information IGAR function in the IGARS database only for simple requests for information
(function code 1A) that the IG can resolve or answer quickly or requests for IG-to-IG support (function code 1B).
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 51
(l) Inspectors general will not include in the IGARS database information from protected programs or other
classified information in accordance with AR 380 – 5, AR 380 – 381, and AR 381 – 10. In accordance with
paragraph 1–4b(5)(e) above, the IG should contact TIG through DAIG’s Intelligence Oversight Division (SAIG – IO)
or other appropriate IG (for example, INSCOM or USASOC) using the appropriate classified communication method
(secure internet protocol router network, Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communication System, secure phone) if avail-
able and determine the appropriate course of action for addressing the matter.
(3) Step 3, initiate referrals and make initial notifications.
(a) When referring a case to the local chain of command, the IG will keep the case open to monitor the chain of
command’s actions to ensure that the command addressed all issues and allegations (see para 7–1i(3)).
(b) IGs may refer IGARs to an appropriate agency outside the chain of command on behalf of the complainant but
must remain mindful of confidentiality concerns and determine if the case requires monitoring until completion. IGs
must notify complainants of any referrals to the command.
(c) IGs may refer issues to other IG staff sections due to jurisdictional or other reasons and close the case in IGARS
as necessary. Referring IG staff sections may only retain OOR status in the vertical chain of command (such as ACOM
down to corps or division) and with the agreement of the receiving IG staff section, which will in turn become the
OOI. The OOR will only close the case once the OOI has reported its factfinding results.
(d) DAIG’s Assistance Division is the only external IG organization that can direct an IG staff section in the field
to work an issue or conduct an investigation. This tasking authority does not exist among IGs, regardless of echelon,
below DAIG level. If a disagreement between two IG staff sections occurs with regard to a referral, DAIG’s Assistance
Division will adjudicate.
(e) IGs will refer to DAIG’s Intelligence Oversight Division by secure means all nonroutine IGARs involving an
individual or issue associated with a SAP or sensitive activity.
(4) Step 4, inspector general factfinding. This step has no prescriptive provisions for the Assistance function.
(5) Step 5, make notification of results. At the completion of the assistance inquiry, the IG will notify the
complainant of the results that pertain directly to that complainant verbally or in writing and then annotate
the notification in the case notes in the IGARS database, including uploading any new documents pertaining to
the case.
(6) Step 6, conduct follow-up.
(a) IGs will ensure that, upon closing the file, they have addressed all issues and allegations appropriately and have
fulfilled all IG responsibilities.
(b) Followup will include a review of issues previously addressed to determine if further appeal procedures are
available or if the IG must examine due process. Followup for a command-addressed issue can be a review of
the command product to determine if the issues and allegations were addressed.
(c) An IG will not close the case until completing all appropriate actions.
(7) Step 7, close the inspector general action request.
(a) IGs will close the case in IGARS and ensure that the synopsis entered into the IGARS database includes an
evaluation of the facts and evidence examined, as well as a conclusion of "founded," "unfounded," or “assis-
tance.” The conclusion varies for each assistance case; however, most assistance cases should conclude with “assis-
tance.”
(b) IGs will complete any reports as determined by the local IG staff section’s standing operating procedure or as
required by DAIG’s Assistance Division.
(c) IGs will, upon closing the case in the IGARS database, analyze the issue (or issues) addressed for trends and
systemic implications throughout the command.
(d) IGs will provide a final reply to the complainant, either verbally or in writing, and document the final reply in
IGARS.
(e) The command IG is responsible for ensuring that all case information (documents, photographs, recordings, and
so forth) used by the IG to resolve the matter is uploaded in the IGARS database. Those IGs who lack connectivity
to the IGARS database will maintain the case information until they are able to update IGARS or will forward the
completed case data to DAIG in accordance with guidance provided by DAIG’s Information Resource
Management Division (SAIG – IR).
(f) IGs will encourage complainants who are not satisfied with the IG’s conclusions to seek redress through the
next higher IG before elevating the matter to TIG or DODIG.
e. Time limit. Complainants must present their issues and allegations to an IG in a timely manner in order for IGs
to resolve them effectively. An IG is not required to look into a complaint if the complainant has failed to present the
matter within 1 year of learning of the alleged problem or wrongdoing or if more than 3 years have elapsed since the
date of the problem or wrongdoing. The ACOM, ASCC, or DRU IGs and DAIG may accept complaints submitted 3
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 52
to 5 years after the alleged problem or wrongdoing where extraordinary circumstances justify the complainant’s delay
in reporting the allegation or issue—or in cases of special Army interest. The ACOM, ASCC, or DRU IGs may also
approve for action complaints received by lower echelon IG staff sections in the vertical chain that occurred between
3 and 5 years after the alleged problem or wrongdoing and where extraordinary circumstances exist. The ACOM,
ASCC, or DRU IGs and DAIG will serve as the OOR when referring such cases to a lower level IG. TIG is the final
authority for complaints beyond 5 years. This time limit does not invest IGs with the authority to decline a referral
from DODIG or an MC; in addition, the time limit does not apply to the requirement to report allegations against
senior officials in accordance with paragraph 1–4b(5)(d), above.
f. Special correspondence. IGs routinely receive allegations or requests for assistance in a variety of ways. Normal
correspondence includes letters (and in some cases audio or video tapes) that the IG must attach to the hard copy DA
Form 1559 as part of the case file. Call-in complaints are acceptable, but the IG must ensure the complainant under-
stands the Privacy Act and verbally consents to the release of personally identifying information in order to resolve
the matter. The following types of written complaints represent special situations and, in some cases, require
special handling:
(1) White House and Congressional correspondence. The Army White House Liaison Office (WHLO) refers
requests from the President, Vice President, or their spouses to DAIG or to an Army staff agency. Referrals from MCs
include requests from constituents who may be Soldiers, Family members, or private citizens. The Army Office of the
Chief of Legislative Liaison (OCLL) receives cases from MCs and refers them to the Army staff, the chain
of command, or to DAIG (see para 6–5, below, for ARNG responses to MCs). If the WHLO or OCLL forwards the
matter to DAIG, then DAIG’s Assistance Division will in turn refer the matter to the appropriate Army IG staff section
for action while retaining OOR status. The receiving IG staff section will be the OOI and may conduct an assistance
inquiry, investigative inquiry, or investigation based upon the nature of the complaint. Once the IG action is complete,
the IG will forward the results through the ACOM, ASCC, or DRU IG to DAIG’s Assistance Division, which will
prepare the final response to the complainant on behalf of the President or to the MC, and furnish copies to the WHLO
or OCLL and the IG staff section (or sections) that processed the case. Any IG who receives a request directly from
the President or an MC, or from the installation or activity congressional liaison office, will promptly notify DAIG’s
Assistance Division so that the Assistance Division can contact the WHLO or OCLL to have the case transferred to
DAIG.
(2) Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Army, and Chief of Staff, Army correspondence. TIG may receive refer-
rals from the Secretary of Defense, SECARMY, CSA, and the Executive Communications and Control office. DAIG’s
Assistance Division, on behalf of TIG, will forward these referrals to Army staff agencies, ACOMs, ASCCs, and
DRUs for input and responses to these referrals.
(3) The Department of Defense Hotline. The hotline coordinator in DAIG’s Assistance Division receives these cases
from the DODIG Hotline Office. The division, through the Hotline Branch, refers these cases for assistance inquiry
or investigation to ACOM, ASCC, or DRU IGs or to Army staff principals for command inquiry or investigation.
Depending on the nature of the referral or the findings, these agencies or commands must reply using the Hotline
completion format specified in DODI 7050.01 (see para 7–3a, below).
(4) Electronic mail. IGs will treat IGARs sent by email as a call-in complaint by calling the individual to ensure
that he or she understands the Privacy Act and verbally consents to the release of personally identifying information
in order to resolve the complaint. The IG will acknowledge receipt by sending a generic email message only if the
complainant did not provide a mailing address or telephone number. When acknowledging receipt by email, the IG
must use a generic subject line to ensure the complainant’s confidentiality. The IG will never reply to the actual
message but will instead send a new message to avoid sending confidential IG information back through an open email
server. The IG should make every attempt to verify the source of complaints received by email either in person or
telephonically or, if anonymous, that the complaint is in fact legitimate.
6–2. Special types of complaints and complainants
a. Anonymous complaints. IGs will not ignore anonymous IGARs. IGs will analyze all anonymous complaints for
issues and allegations and then take action to resolve them to protect the interests of the government. When processing
anonymous allegations and complaints, IGs will not attempt to identify the complainant or create the appearance of
doing so. Determining the facts related to the IGAR is the IG’s primary concern. If the IG does not have enough
information to resolve the complaint, the IG will close the case and note this fact in the synopsis. Because the com-
plaint is anonymous, the IG is not required to reply to the complainant even if the IG later learns the complainant’s
identity. IGs will not accept anonymous or third-party allegations of statutory whistleblower reprisal (see para 1–13f,
above). The affected individual must want the IG to investigate the allegation of reprisal and be willing to cooperate;
only the DODIG can close a case based upon the complainant’s request or failure to cooperate with the investigator.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 53
b. Habitual complainants. Some complainants will repeatedly bring complaints to an IG. If a case has been closed,
the IG will review any new material and determine if he or she should re-open the case. IGs will not automatically
reject habitual complaints without first analyzing, in an impartial manner, the complaints for new matters.
c. Third-party complainants. Third-party complainants are individuals who provide a complaint on behalf of
a Soldier or Civilian employee. See the glossary for a detailed definition of a third party. Most third-party complainants
tend to be parents or other Family members. The PA prohibits the release of PA-protected information to third parties
without the consent of the individual to whom the information pertains unless an applicable PA exception applies that
permits disclosure or the complainant completes a DA Form 7433 (Privacy Act Information Release Statement). In
general, IG responses to third parties are direct in nature and simply acknowledge receipt of the complaint. If the
subject of the third party’s complaint is a Soldier or Civilian employee participating in an alcohol or drug rehabilitation
program, refer to AR 600 – 85 for an example of the consent statements for release of information.
d. Emotional complainants. Many complainants will have strong emotions regarding the matters they present to the
IG and will, on occasion, display strong anger or resentment. All complainants should behave appropriately and adhere
to proper professional or military courtesy as necessary when presenting their IGARs to the IG. IGs will advise com-
plainants who become verbally abusive, disrespectful of military rank and authority, or threatening in any other
manner that such behavior is unacceptable. In such cases, IGs will caution the complainant that the IG may bring
continued abusive, disrespectful, or threatening behavior to the attention of the appropriate command or supervisory
authority. The IG must take care to avoid referring such behavior to a command or individual at a time that
might result in reprisal against the complainant as defined by the whistleblower protections. If the IG makes such a
referral, he or she must ensure that the referral occurs for the abusive, disrespectful conduct and not for the protected,
lawful communication with the IG. The IG will carefully weigh the severity of the complainant’s behavior against the
potential effect on the IG system and on the complainant’s right to make a protected communication before referring
such behavior to the appropriate command or supervisory authority. Despite the complainant’s emotional state
or behavior, the IG will still accept the individual’s complaint.
e. Withdrawn complaints. At any point following receipt of a complaint, the complainant may ask to withdraw the
IGAR. The IG must determine whether to continue the case based on the interests of the Army or the command. The
complainant’s permission to proceed with the case is not necessary. IGs will attempt to determine why the complainant
elected to withdraw the complaint. Possible reprisal, coercion, or duress are appropriate issues of concern for IGs. The
IG will not suggest that a complainant withdraw a complaint. But, if the complainant desires to do so, the complainant
must submit the withdrawal request in writing or telephonically. If the IG continues with the complaint, the IG has no
further requirement to notify the complainant.
f. Misusers of the inspector general system. The IG must assume that each complaint received is legitimate and
worthy of further inquiry. Complainants have the responsibility to present truthful information concerning allegations
or other information. In situations where a complainant has a documented history of presenting patterns of issues
and/or allegations that are false, baseless, malicious, deceptive, defamatory, improbable, or previously addressed as
unfounded, not substantiated, or not appropriate for the Army IG System, the IG may limit the complainant’s means
to correspond with IGs. While not intended to discourage the submission of additional matters, this procedure will
prompt the complainant to be deliberate, specific, and truthful. Before imposing this condition on a complainant, the
command IG must obtain the directing authority’s request for designation. TIG is the approving authority for desig-
nating a complainant as an misuser of the IG system. The DAIG’s Assistance Division will retain all documents with
the associated case as the OOR until TIG completes the review. If approved by TIG, the IG will then notify the
complainant of the requirement in writing, explain the reasons for the requirement, and inform the complainant about
the new requirement for future complaint submissions. The IG will inform the complainant that the designation is not
an adverse finding and will not be used for any adverse action. When a designated misuser submits a new complaint,
the receiving IG will thoroughly analyze the new complaint for any credible evidence of new information. In the
absence of credible information, the IG will stop at step 2 of the IGAP. If the IG receives credible information, the IG
will conduct all necessary steps of the IGAP. A complainant formally designated by TIG as an misuser may submit a
request for reconsideration not earlier than 3 years after the date the individual was notified of the designation (see
para 3 –12).
g. Members of other Services. Military personnel and Family members of other Services may present complaints to
any Army IG. If the IGAR concerns Army-related issues, the IG will process the IGAR as appropriate. If the IGAR
contains issues that are appropriate for another Service, the IG will refer the issues to that Service IG through DAIG’s
Assistance Division and then assist that Service IG as necessary. If the matter involves the ANG, DAIG’s Assistance
Division will refer it to the CNGB (NGB – IG).
h. Pay-related inspector general action requests. If the local finance office cannot resolve a pay issue, the IG will
contact the U.S. Army Financial Management Command’s (FMCOM’s) IG (part of the Defense Finance and
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 54
Accounting Service) for assistance. The FMCOM IG only provides technical support assistance to other IGs and does
not accept referrals. The FMCOM IG will resolve the pay matter and then provide the information to the IG OOR.
i. Military technicians. Military technicians in both the ARNG and USAR are Federal Civilian employees who, as
a condition of their employment as outlined in 10 USC 10216, must maintain membership in the selected reserve. The
inherent dual status of military technicians requires IGs to determine the technician’s status (military or Civilian, or
both) with regard to the issue or when the technician was alleged to have committed an impropriety. Knowing the
individual’s correct status will determine how best to resolve the matter. Contact DAIG’s Assistance Division
for questions concerning a military technician’s status.
6–3. Matters inappropriate for inspector general action or with limited inspector general
involvement
Several types of complaints are not appropriate for IG action, require minimal IG involvement, or are a combination
of both of these factors. The IG will always advise complainants of the appropriate recipient for the complaint and
normally allow the complainants to present the matter to that agency. The IG may elect to refer the issue on behalf of
the complainant but must be mindful of confidentiality concerns. The IG will still open a case in IGARS and note the
referral action. Matters not appropriate for IG action—or for which IGs have a limited or infrequent role—are as
follows:
a. Soldier nonsupport of Family members. IGs have a limited role in matters involving Soldier nonsupport of Fam-
ily members. Resolving nonsupport claims is a command responsibility, and the IG’s primary role is to act as an
information conduit to the Soldier’s immediate commander. The IG must ensure that the Soldier’s immediate
commander is aware of all complaints, is provided copies of documentation, and takes appropriate action. Army Reg-
ulation 608 – 99, as applicable, establishes the commander’s responsibilities in nonsupport cases. The Judge Advocate
General (TJAG) is the proponent for AR 608 – 99, so local or servicing SJAs are best suited to answer a complainant’s
or commander’s detailed questions regarding this policy. The IG’s actions upon receiving a complaint of nonsupport
are as follows:
(1) Ensure that the Family members’ immediate needs, such as food and shelter, are met by contacting the
appropriate military support agency and the appropriate commander so that both may assist the complainant using a
combination of military and Civilian resources. The IG will monitor this process until the Family members’ immediate
needs are met.
(2) The IG will inform the complainant that he or she must notify the commander directly, or the IG may opt to
refer the complaint directly to the commander on the complainant’s behalf. IGs are authorized to provide the com-
plainant with the commander’s contact information. The commander must counsel the Soldier and respond in writing
to the complainant within 14 days. The IG will monitor the situation by confirming that the commander responded to
the complainant before closing the case in IGARS.
(3) When requested by the Soldier’s commander, IGs may use IG technical channels to communicate with the
complainant or gather additional information by other means.
(4) If the complainant has specific questions about AR 608 – 99, the IG will refer the complainant to the local or
servicing legal assistance officer.
(5) If the commander fails to respond within 14 days or the complainant returns to the IG for assistance, the IG will
contact the commander’s next higher commander and allow the chain of command to resolve the matter. If no further
action occurs, the IG may investigate the Soldier’s commander for failing to adhere to the requirements of AR 608 – 99.
b. Indebtedness of military personnel. Department of Defense policy states that members of the military services
are expected to pay their just financial obligations in a proper and timely manner. A Service member’s failure to pay
a just financial obligation may result in disciplinary action under the UCMJ. As a legal concept, what does and does
not constitute “just financial obligations” is a complex topic. Other than those requirements established in AR 608 – 99
and those instances involving involuntary allotments processed by Defense Finance and Accounting Service, DOD
Components have no legal authority to order members to pay a private debt or to divert any part of their pay for
satisfaction of a private debt.
(1) IGs receiving complaints of indebtedness will forward them to the Soldier’s commander in accordance with
DODI 1344.09.
(2) Some states have enacted laws prohibiting creditors from contacting a debtor’s employer about indebtedness or
communicating facts on indebtedness to an employer unless certain conditions are met. In states with such laws, the
processing of debt complaints will not be extended to those creditors who are in violation of the state law.
(3) A determination of indebtedness usually requires a legal conclusion. IGs must generally rely on their SJAs and
the attorneys in the local SJA office for a determination of just financial obligations (see para 1–13g(3)).
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 55
(4) When receiving issues concerning financial claims involving Soldiers in a Title 10 status, IGs must be careful
to distinguish between a legal judgment imposing a financial liability and premature financial disputes raised by parties
to a civil issue.
(a) As the concept is applied to IG activities and procedures, indebtedness and/or financial obligations generally
involve a determination of financial liability. Examples include purchase agreements, lines of credit, trial court pro-
ceedings, and magistrates’ court proceedings.
(b) As the concept is applied to IG activities and procedures, premature financial disputes are those issues in which
a party asserts a financial claim but has not availed himself or herself to available redress procedures provided by local
statutes. Unlike indebtedness, financial liability issues are rarely IG appropriate, since the complainant has a civil
redress process available. Examples include landlord-tenant disputes in which a landlord claims the tenant/Soldier
violated the terms of a residential rental agreement; disputes involving child care provided by a private care provider;
and the sales of privately owned vehicles.
c. Contractor activities. Contractor activities normally fall within the jurisdiction of other established avenues of
redress and are not appropriate for IG action except in rare cases. IGs will analyze the substance of complaints from
contractors and their employees who are involved in commercial, procurement, or contracting activities on
behalf of the Army to determine if the matters may be appropriate for IG action. In most cases, the IG will refer the
matter to the Principal Assistant Responsible for Contracting and/or the contracting officer representative or coordi-
nate with that person—as well as the command’s SJA, general counsel, or DAIG’s legal advisor—to determine how
best to resolve the contract-related complaint. Contractors must cooperate with IG inquiries, investigations, and
requests for information to the fullest extent possible, regardless of whether the applicable contract contains an IG-
cooperation clause, unless doing so would cause them to self-incriminate in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth
Amendment.
d. Not of Army interest. IGs will not address complaints that are clearly not related to matters of Army interest. In
these cases, the IG will advise the complainant to present the matter to the appropriate agency or Service or,
if necessary, refer the matter to that agency or Service on behalf of the complainant through DAIG’s Assistance Di-
vision (see para 6–2g).
e. Civilian Human Resource Agency Regions and Civilian Personnel Advisory Centers. Issues and allegations re-
lated to CPACs require immediate referral to the U.S. Army Civilian Human Resources Agency, a field operating
agency of the Deputy Chief of Staff (DCS), G – 1. For both continental United States (CONUS)-based and OCONUS-
based CPACs, the local IG may provide assistance in direct coordination with a DCS, G – 1 representative. The IG
may also use IG channels to coordinate or refer the matter or to resolve concerns regarding IG jurisdiction. For
OCONUS-based CPACs, IGs may contact the ACOM, ASCC, or DRU IG regarding systemic issues involving CPAC
operations and coordinate inspections and investigation actions. For CONUS-based CPACs, IGs may contact DAIG
regarding systemic issues involving CPAC operations and coordinate inspections and investigation actions.
f. Hazardous work conditions. All IGs will advise complainants presenting IGARs concerning hazardous
work conditions (unsafe or unhealthy) to follow the procedures outlined in AR 385 –10.
g. Redress available through other means. Many situations exist in which either law or regulation provides Soldiers,
Civilians, Family members, and retirees a remedy or means of redress. Those individuals requesting IG assistance
must seek and exhaust all available prescribed redress or remedy processes before an IG can provide assistance. IGs
will not assist individuals in drafting their requests for redress or remedy. Once the complainant has exhausted all
available redress procedures, the IG is limited to a review of the redress process to determine if the Soldier was
afforded the due process provided by law or regulation. If the IG determines that the Soldier did not receive due
process, the IG will attempt to resolve any problem areas by contacting the proponent for that process. If the IG is
unable to resolve the matter, the IG will consult the SJA and, if necessary, the directing authority for options on how
to proceed. Examples of situations where specific redress, remedy, or appeals procedures are applicable include, but
are not limited to, the following:
(1) Courts-martial actions and trial-related appeals.
(2) Non-judicial proceedings, appeal denial, and/or imposition of punishment.
(3) Officer evaluation reports.
(4) NCO evaluation reports.
(5) Enlisted reductions.
(6) Type of discharge received.
(7) Pending or requested discharge.
(8) Financial liability investigations of property loss.
(9) Relief for cause.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 56
(10) Adverse information filed in personnel records in accordance with AR 600 – 37 (except for allegations of
reprisal).
(11) Claims.
(12) Requests for redress or other complaints submitted and accepted for processing under Article 138, UCMJ (AR
27 – 10).
(13) Medical credentialing.
(14) Claims comprised of civilian financial liability issues, landlord-tenant disputes, alleged breaches of contracts,
installment sales, and/or other torts/civil disputes.
(15) Issues related to post bars, directives to vacate post housing, suspension of post driving privileges, and so forth.
(16) Decisions, results, or conclusions related to constituted HRC retention or show-cause boards.
(17) Medical Evaluation Board determinations, disability ratings, and disapproval of requests for Continuation on
Active Duty.
(18) Issues related to the enforcement of alleged violations of Federal, state, or local traffic and vehicle codes on
military installations, or issues related to potential appearances before a Federal magistrate.
(19) Issues related to semi-privatized housing landlord-tenant disputes (except for issues or allegations involving
alleged excessive charges for fair wear and tear).
(20) Issues involving release from Active Duty decisions.
h. Redress available for Department of the Army Civilian employees through other channels. Federal law
and regulations, DOD guidance, Army regulations, and local collective bargaining agreements include procedures for
processing grievances and appeals. Procedures are also available for processing complaints made by employees per-
taining to the terms and conditions of their employment. IGs will advise Civilian employees to use the procedures
prescribed by the applicable laws, regulations, and agreement rather than IGAP procedures in processing these com-
plaints. IGs may act upon matters that do not directly affect the Civilian’s employment situation or well-being, such
as allegations against third parties and reports of alleged misconduct, mismanagement, or other matters requiring
command attention. Civilian complaints with other means of redress generally fall into the following five broad
categories:
(1) Grievances under DOD 1400.25 – M, under a negotiated collective bargaining agreement require referral to the
local CPAC.
(2) Appeals of adverse actions within the purview of 5 USC 7701 through 7703 require referral to the local
CPAC.
(3) Any EEO complaints, including those matters regarding reprisals for protected EEO activity within the purview
of AR 690– 600, require referral to the EEO officer or counselor.
(4) Allegations from appropriated fund Civilian employees of retaliation or reprisal generally fall within the pur-
view of 5 USC 2301 and 5 USC 2302 and under 10 USC 1587 for nonappropriated fund Civilian employees. IGs
should encourage the Civilian employee to report the allegation to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, 1730 M Street
NW, Suite 218, Washington, DC 20036 –4505 (https://osc.gov). IGs should encourage Civilian employees alleging
retaliation or reprisal within the purview of 10 USC 1587 to report the allegation to the Office of the Inspector General,
U.S. Department of Defense, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22350 – 1500 (www.dodig.mil).
(5) Other statutory or regulatory complaint or appeal processes exist that may provide redress.
i. Soldier equal opportunity complaints. When an EO complaint is presented to an IG, the IG will refer the com-
plainant to the supporting EO office for action. If the complaint includes non-EO issues or allegations not normally
addressed through the EO process, the IG will coordinate with the respective EO agency to determine how best to
address all of the complainant’s concerns. If the IG refers the complainant to the supporting EO office for action, on
complaints that have both IG and EO components, but the complainant prefers the IG rather than EO, then, in accord-
ance with AR 600 –20 and paragraph 1–4a (9)(c) of this publication, the IG will use the IGAP (rather than the EO
process) to resolve the complaint and use an IGAR to process it as an alternative to normal EO complaint channels.
When the complainant seeks redress for past alleged discriminatory practices that have become part of official Army
records, the IG will advise the complainant to use the appeals procedures provided by law or Army regulations per-
taining to the particular adverse action. Examples include officer or noncommissioned officer evaluation report ap-
peals, courts-martial appeals, and other actions listed in subparagraph g, above.
j. Command climate sensing sessions. IGs will only conduct command climate sensing sessions if specifically di-
rected to do so by the directing authority. Other staff proponents such as the EO advisor, chaplain, or EEO advisor
normally conduct these sensing sessions and will perform them as requested during command or staff inspections or
under other circumstances as directed by the commander. If the commander directs the IG to conduct a command
climate sensing session, the IG will always recommend first that the appropriate staff proponents conduct the sensing
session, because the IG must act on every issue or allegation that surfaces during the session. If an IG must conduct a
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 57
command climate sensing session that includes Army Civilian employees, the IG must first coordinate with the ser-
vicing CPAC to determine if the IG must notify a union. This provision does not preclude IGs from assessing the
command’s morale. An IG may assess morale using interviews, sensing sessions, and other IG information-gathering
techniques and may report the information informally or formally to the commander. (See The Assistance and Inves-
tigations Guide for further guidance on how to conduct morale assessments.) In all cases, the information gathered is
IG information and subject to the provisions governing IG records outlined in chapter 3.
k. Criminal allegations. IGs will not normally conduct investigations or investigative inquiries when the alleged
impropriety is of a nature that, if substantiated, would likely constitute criminal misconduct (see para 7–1i(1) for
further guidance).
6–4. Assistance visits
a. Visits to subordinate commands. IGs may conduct assistance visits to subordinate commands to evaluate the
assistance function locally; identify or prevent problems with DA or local policies; provide assistance to Soldiers,
Family members, and Army Civilians; assist subordinate IGs and the chain of command; and assess the morale of the
command.
b. Staff assistance visits. Command IGs of higher echelon IG staff sections may conduct SAVs of lower echelon
IG staff sections to review their processes in conducting the four IG functions and to assist them in identifying areas
to sustain and improve. The SAVs will not be a premise for interfering with the guidance or prerogatives of a lower
echelon commander with his or her IG. See AR 1 – 201 for further guidance on SAVs.
c. Coordination of visits. Higher echelon command IGs will coordinate with lower echelon command IGs prior to
an assistance visit or SAV. Normally, the coordination will occur 90 to 120 days prior to the visit but may be adjusted
based upon coordination and agreement by both command IGs. The visiting assistance or SAV team will normally
invite the subordinate command’s IGs to accompany them during the visit when venturing outside the IG staff sec-
tion’s office.
6–5. Guidelines for Army National Guard assistance matters
a. Federal and non-Federal interest. IGs will process IGARs submitted by ARNGUS personnel based on their
individual status and that involve matters of Federal interest with the cooperation of, and in coordination with, the
State AG using the procedures outlined in this chapter. An IG may process matters of non-Federal interest as pre-
scribed by the State AG but must do so within the guidelines established in this regulation. IGARs submitted by ANG
personnel are addressed in paragraph 1– 10.
b. Equal opportunity complaints. IGs process discrimination complaints made by members of the NG on the basis
of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, or sexual orientation under NGB guidance rather than using the normal
IG assistance function.
c. Responses to State officials. State command IGs respond directly to State officials (the governor and/or State
representatives or senators) as is customary in that State for handling State inquiries.
Chapter 7
The Inspector General Investigations Function
7–1. Inspector general investigations—purpose and procedures
a. Investigations as an inspector general function. Investigations is the IG function that provides the commander/di-
recting authority another means through which to resolve allegations of impropriety. The primary purpose of IG in-
vestigations and investigative inquiries is to resolve allegations of impropriety efficiently and effectively by gathering
evidence, evaluating the credibility of that evidence, analyzing that evidence in the context of identified standards,
and packaging that analysis and subsequent conclusion in a well-written report. In this regard, IGs may investigate
violations of policy, regulation, or law; mismanagement; unethical behavior; fraud; or misconduct. However, IGs will
provide the command the opportunity to resolve allegations within command channels. Therefore, IGs will refer all
command-appropriate allegations to the command in accordance with guidance from the directing authority or, if
criminal in nature, to CID. Directing authorities should opt for an IG investigation or investigative inquiry when
extreme discretion is necessary or when the command investigation is not likely to be efficient or effective. Once an
IG initiates an investigation or investigative inquiry, the IG will complete the entire investigative action to determine
if the allegations are "substantiated" or "not substantiated" (see para 7–2b, below) and if any issues are "founded" or
"unfounded" (see para 6–1a, above).
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 58
(1) Investigation. A formal factfinding examination into allegations, issues, or adverse conditions of a serious na-
ture that provides the directing authority a sound basis for making decisions and taking action. IG investigations
involve the systematic collection and examination of evidence that consists of testimony recorded under oath; docu-
ments; and, in some cases, physical evidence. Only the directing authority can authorize IG investigations using a
written and signed directive. IGs report the conclusions of their investigations using an ROI.
(2) Investigative inquiry. An informal factfinding examination into allegations, issues, or adverse conditions that
are not significant in nature—as deemed by the command IG or the directing authority—and when the potential for
serious consequences (such as potential harm to a Soldier or negative impact on the Army’s image) are not foreseen.
IG investigative inquiries involve the collection and examination of evidence that consists of testimony or
written statements; documents; and, in some cases, physical evidence. The directing authority reserves the right to
direct an investigative inquiry if he or she feels an investigation or a command-directed investigation is not appropri-
ate. Command IGs can only direct and approve investigative inquiries with written authority from the respective di-
recting authority. IGs who resolve allegations using this methodology report their conclusions using an ROII.
b. The Inspector General action process. IGs will use the 7-step IGAP outlined in The Assistance and Investigations
Guide to perform IG investigative inquiries and investigations. The guide is available from TIGS’s website at
https://tigs-online.ignet.army.mil/. The process outlined in the guide represents IG doctrine and is authoritative in
nature; IGs may shape, tailor, and adapt the techniques and steps therein as necessary. The IG functions of assistance
and investigations share the IGAP, so IGs receiving complaints containing both issues and allegations often perform
both functions concurrently. The prescriptive provisions to the process appear below:
(1) Step 1, receive the inspector general action request. The provisions in subparagraphs 6–1d(1)(a) through (c),
above, apply.
(2) Step 2, conduct inspector general preliminary analysis. The provisions in subparagraphs 6–1d(2)(a) through
(f), (h) through (j), and (l) apply. The following prescriptive measures also apply to this step of the IGAP when con-
ducting investigations or investigative inquiries:
(a) IGs will promptly notify the next higher IG and the directing authority of any allegation that, if substantiated,
would adversely affect public perception of the command, such as matters of media interest; complaints of sexual
harassment; and reports of fraud, waste, and abuse.
(b) If the IG knows the complainant’s identity, the IG must interview the complainant during this step or Step 4.
(c) The IG assigned to conduct the investigation will obtain a written directive from the directing authority
(investigations only).
(3) Step 3, initiate referrals and make initial notifications. The provisions in subparagraphs 6–1d(3)(a) through (e),
above, apply. The following prescriptive measures also apply to this step of the IGAP:
(a) IGs will inform complainants that the IG may refer any issues and allegations to the chain of command or other
non-IG entity for resolution. Refusal by the complainant to consent to the release of relevant documentation may
preclude the IG from resolving the complainant’s issues. IGs will adhere to the records-release provisions of chapter
3, above, when referring allegations to the chain of command.
(b) If the directing authority directs an IG investigation or investigative inquiry, the IG will verbally notify the
subject’s or suspect’s commander or supervisor prior to conducting any interviews in that person’s organization (ex-
cept for the complainant interview, if necessary) and verbally notify the subject or suspect of the nature of the allega-
tions before interviewing that person or requesting a statement.
(c) Record all notifications using the formats in The Assistance and Investigations Guide for later attachment to the
ROI or ROII. The subject or suspect notification is evidence that the IG afforded the subject or suspect the right to
know all allegations. The IG will record these notifications in the IGARS case notes.
(4) Step 4, inspector general factfinding. The following provisions for this step apply to investigations and inves-
tiga-tive inquiries as specified.
(a) The IG will develop a written investigative plan that includes a witness list with the complainant, subject-matter
experts, witnesses, and the subject or suspect; an interview sequence; and questions for each witness.
(b) (Required for investigations only but recommended for investigative inquiries): The IG will take recorded tes-
timony under oath from all witnesses, subjects, and suspects; make PA and FOIA notices; and render rights warnings
for subjects and suspects with DA Form 3881 (Rights Warning Procedure/Waiver Certificate) when required in ac-
cordance with the guides and scripts contained in The Assistance and Investigations Guide. See paragraph 7–1g
(2) for further guidance regarding subjects and the use of DA Form 3881.
(c) IGs will transcribe into written form, verbatim or summarized, all recorded testimony, taken under oath, for
attachment as an exhibit in the ROI or, if applicable, the ROII. The IG will verify the accuracy of the written verbatim
or summarized testimony against the recorded version before including it as an exhibit in the ROI or ROII.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 59
If portions of the recording prove difficult to hear or understand for technical or other reasons, the IG who conducted
the interview will provide a supplemental memorandum summarizing those missed portions of the testimony.
(d) Persons who provide testimony in IG investigations and investigative inquiries and their legal counsel (if pre-
sent) will not record their testimony by tape or other means in order to protect the confidentiality of witnesses, subjects,
and suspects. Witnesses, subjects, and suspects may review their testimony for accuracy prior to completion of the
investigation or investigative inquiry but will not alter the content. Clarifications, modifications, or additions to one’s
testimony will require a subsequent interview or a sworn, written statement at the investigating IG’s discretion.
(e) IGs will ask people with whom they communicate during notifications and interviews not to disclose the matters
under investigation or investigative inquiry, except their own personal counsel if they consult one without permission
of the IG. IGs will not withhold permission for defense counsels to interview witnesses about matters under investi-
gation, but IGs will not provide defense counsels with witness names due to IG confidentiality requirements.
(f) The IG will notify DAIG’s Assistance Division within 2 working days of any subject, suspect, or witness who
fails to answer a question or provide information during the course of an IG investigation or investigative inquiry if,
in the IG’s estimation, the individual’s trustworthiness, reliability, and judgment in dealing with classified material
comes into question. In such cases, TIG may notify the individual’s commander to assess his or her continued
access to classified material (see AR 380 – 67).
(g) The IG will capture the results of the investigation or investigative inquiry in an ROI, ROII, or hotline
completion report (see para 7 – 2, below).
(h) The IG will obtain a written legal review of the ROI, ROII, or hotline completion report in memorandum or
letter format if the report contains any substantiated allegations or resolves a complaint of statutory whistleblower
reprisal. The IG will include this legal review in the ROI or ROII, which should concur with the IG’s substantiation
of the allegation. Legal reviews are not required for ROIIs or hotline completion reports that do not contain
substantiated findings.
(i) The IG will obtain the directing authority’s approval for investigations and for investigative inquiries. The IG
will upload the approved ROI/ROII, including all attachments, into the IGARS database.
(5) Step 5, make notification of results. The provision in subparagraph 6–1d(5), above, applies. The following pre-
scriptive measures also apply to this step of the IGAP:
(a) The IG will notify the subject or suspect of the approved results of the investigation or investigative inquiry in
writing (by return receipt if using the postal system), record that action in the IGARS database, and upload a copy of
the notification in IGARS. The information in the database must accurately address the allegations, conclusions,
recommendations, and command actions.
(b) As part of the written notification, the IG will explain to subjects or suspects with substantiated allegations or
other unfavorable information the procedures necessary to obtain copies of the ROI or ROII under FOIA (see para 7–
1f, below).
(c) The IG will notify the subject’s or suspect’s commander or supervisor of the approved findings. If notifying any
of these persons is inappropriate, the IG will notify a higher level commander of the results.
(d) Inspectors general will notify appropriate commanders of substantiated conclusions, even if the IG did
not initially notify those commanders of the investigative inquiry or investigation. These notifications may be
necessary when commanders change or when the subject or suspect has been assigned to a different command.
(e) IGs will notify subjects or suspects of any unfavorable information that the IG included in the ROI or ROII of
which the subject or suspect was not initially apprised (see para 7–1f, below).
(f) IGs will maintain all notification records with the case file if the IG cannot attach the record to the electronic
IGARS file.
(6) Step 6, follow-up. The following prescriptive measure applies to this step of the process. The IG will ensure that
any responses from the subject or suspect to unfavorable information that will appear in the ROI or ROII are main-
tained with the hard copy case file if the IG cannot attach the record to the electronic IGARS file. Similarly, the IG
will ensure that any notification of unfavorable information made to the subject or suspect, as opposed to unfavorable
information made known and documented during the interview process, is maintained with the case file if the IG
cannot attach the notification to the electronic IGARS file.
(7) Step 7, close the inspector general action request. The provisions in subparagraphs 6–1d(7)(a) through (e),
above, apply. The following prescriptive measure also applies to this step of the process: The IG will notify the com-
plainant in writing, record the action in the IGARS database, and upload a copy of the notification in IGARS. The IG
will maintain the notification record with the case file if the IG does not have access to IGARS or, due to connectivity
problems, cannot upload the case and all supporting documents in IGARS.
c. Common guidelines with the assistance function. The guidance on command policy, general IG jurisdiction, time
limits, emotional complainants, and so on outlined in paragraphs 6–1c through 6–1f and 6 – 3, above, apply to the
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 60
investigations function. Additionally, refer to paragraphs 1–4b(5)(e) and 1–7h, above, for reporting and coordination
guidance for allegations or issues related to classified information, sensitive activities, or SAPs.
d. Jurisdiction and directing authorities. The SECARMY has authorized TIG to investigate all Army activities.
Only the SECARMY, the Under Secretary of the Army, the CSA, the VCSA, and TIG may direct DAIG investiga-
tions. Heads of HQDA agencies, commanders, and State AGs may request that TIG conduct an investigation, but they
are not authorized to direct TIG to do so. TIG may direct a command IG at any level and in any Army component to
conduct an investigation or investigative inquiry.
(1) IGs may investigate allegations against members of the command or subordinate commanders within the IG’s
sphere of activity as authorized by the directing authority.
(2) Command inspectors general may only direct and approve investigative inquiries within the IG’s sphere of
activity with written authority from the directing authority.
(3) The next higher IG will investigate allegations against the IG’s commander unless that commander is a senior
official. If the commander is a senior official, the IG will forward the allegation to DAIG’s Investigations Division
within 2 working days when practicable (see para 7–1l).
(4) Expanding the scope of an IG investigative or investigative inquiry, or adding additional allegations or individ-
uals not originally addressed in the beginning of the investigation, requires the approval of the directing authority or
command IG as applicable.
(5) If the IG discovers matters requiring investigative action that are unrelated or not subordinate to the allegations
being addressed in the ongoing investigation or investigative inquiry, the IG will report them to the directing authority
or command IG for appropriate action. If the IG is not directed to investigate these new allegations, the IG will record
them in the “Other Matters” paragraph and recommend referral to the command or appropriate agency in the recom-
mendations paragraph, both of which are found in the ROI or ROII. If these new allegations are resolved in the same
investigation or investigative inquiry, the IG will document the genesis of the allegations in the background or intro-
duction paragraph of the ROI or ROII.
(6) Inspectors general may conduct investigations and investigative inquiries at tenant units belonging to
other ACOMs, ASCCs, and DRUs after coming to a mutual agreement between the IG who must conduct the inves-
tigation and the ACOM, ASCC, or DRU IG. Directing authorities at each level must be involved in this agreement
process. DAIG’s Assistance Division will resolve all jurisdictional issues.
(7) State AGs may direct IG investigations or investigative inquiries into Federal activities within their States, to
include investigating matters concerning both the ARNG and ANG.
(8) Directing authorities may not terminate an IG investigation or investigative inquiry unless TIG approves.
e. Inspector general investigators. Only IGs may conduct IG investigations and investigative inquiries. IGs will
actively lead these investigations with the assistance of assistant IGs, but assistant IGs may not conduct the investiga-
tion or investigative inquiry alone and unsupervised on behalf of an IG who may be leading the effort in name only.
Actively leading the investigation or investigative inquiry means that the IG is participating in evidence-gathering and
knows of all factfinding activities conducted by the assistant IG. When personnel are limited and the IG cannot be
present for every interview, assistant IGs are authorized to administer the oath to a subject, suspect, and witness
and conduct an interview without an IG present.
f. Unfavorable information. The IG must inform the subject or suspect of all unfavorable information that the IG
includes in the final ROI or ROII and afford the subject or suspect an opportunity to respond prior to the final publi-
cation of the ROI or ROII. Unfavorable information is any derogatory information that reflects negatively on an
individual’s character, integrity, trustworthiness, or reliability. This information includes the allegations and any
unfavorable information that the IG will include in the final ROI or ROII, including information contained in the
"Other Matters" section. The IG may inform the subject or suspect orally or in writing. Once the IG has informed the
subject or suspect, the IG must document this step and attach it to the ROI or ROII. Additionally, the IG can disclose
evidence related to the unfavorable information to the subject or suspect if that evidence will aid the IG’s factfinding
effort. When disclosing such evidence, the IG must always take steps to protect confidentiality. No subject or suspect
may be required to respond to unfavorable information. A subject or suspect who chooses to respond may do so
by—
(1) Submitting to an interview by the IG.
(2) Providing a sworn, written statement.
(3) Submitting matters through the subject or suspect’s attorney.
(4) Requesting that the IG consider certain documentary evidence.
(5) Requesting that the IG consider certain physical evidence.
(6) Requesting that the IG interview reasonably available witnesses with knowledge on the matter under investiga-
tion.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 61
g. Rights of subjects, suspects, and witnesses. The rights of individuals in IG investigations and investigative
inquiries depend upon their status as subjects, suspects, or witnesses. A subject is a person against whom noncriminal
allegations have been made. A suspect is a person against whom criminal allegations have been made when the alleged
acts are violations of punitive articles of the UCMJ, punitive sections of regulations, or other criminal laws. A witness
is a person who saw, heard, knows, or has something relevant to the issues under investigation and who is not a subject
or suspect. Subject-matter experts who impart to the IG their expertise are witnesses. A subject or a witness may
become a suspect as a result of incriminating information that arises during an investigation or interview or whenever
the IG believes the person has committed a criminal offense.
(1) Suspects—both Soldiers and Army Civilians—have the right to have a lawyer present when providing recorded
testimony under oath (the lawyer may advise the suspect but not speak for him or her); the right to remain silent during
questioning related to the matter; and the right to terminate the questioning. Accordingly, if suspects invoke their
rights or fail to waive their rights after the IG properly advises them of such rights, the IG will record the time and
terminate the interview without a read-out. Invoking one’s rights and remaining silent does not constitute a failure to
cooperate and cannot be the basis for any adverse or corrective action. Because the circumstances under which the IG
may resume questioning are specific to the facts, the investigator will consult with the local legal office before initi-
ating further discussions with these individuals (see UCMJ, Art 31 and Rules 304 and 305: Military Rules of Evidence
(MRE)). When in doubt concerning these rules, the IG will consult with the servicing SJA or DAIG’s legal advisor
(SAIG–JA).
(2) Subjects—both Soldiers and Army Civilians—also have the right to remain silent during questioning related to
the matter under investigation and have the right to terminate the questioning. The IG will notify the subject of this
right during the pre-brief but will not administer a DA Form 3881. Accordingly, if a subject invokes his or her rights,
or fails to waive those rights after the IG properly advises the individual of such, the IG will record the time and
terminate the interview without a read-out. Invoking one’s rights and remaining silent does not constitute a failure to
cooperate and cannot be the basis for any adverse or corrective action.
(3) Department of the Army personnel who are witnesses may not lawfully refuse to answer questions properly
related to an IG investigation or investigative inquiry unless answering the question will incriminate them, will involve
certain privileged communications (see para 7–1h, below), or will be in violation of their right to union representation
as described in subparagraph g(3), below. However, if an IG suspects that a Soldier or Army Civilian under question-
ing has committed a criminal offense, the IG must advise that person of his or her rights under UCMJ, Art. 31 and
384 U.S. 436, as applicable.
(4) Any Army Civilian employee who belongs to a bargaining unit represented by a labor organization certified as
the exclusive representative of that unit has a right to union representation during IG subject or suspect interviews if
the employee reasonably believes that the investigation may result in disciplinary action and the employee requests
the representation. The local union contract may provide for union representation even when the employee does not
request it. IGs will know the contents of the local union contract or will coordinate with the local CPAC management-
employee relations specialist. If an Army Civilian employee serving as a witness is entitled to representation, and the
witness requests a union representative, the IG must allow the representative to be present during the interview. During
the interview, union representatives may comment, speak, or make statements but may not assume control, disrupt the
proceeding, or answer for the interviewee. IGs will apply a standard of "reasonableness" when determining if a repre-
sentative is being disruptive. The representative’s presence is in addition to any right the employee may have to a
lawyer. An IG must take every reasonable step to ensure that the representative can be present for the interview, such
as granting extensions or notifying the union that the employee is having difficulty obtaining a representative.
h. Privileged evidence. IGs will not consider evidence that is privileged under the Manual for Courts Martial MRE
as follows: communications between a lawyer and a client, privileged communications with clergy, the husband-
wife communication privilege (except when the spouse uses government communications means), the political vote
privilege, deliberations of courts and juries, and the psychotherapist-patient privilege. In addition, IGs will not use
evidence derived from the illegal monitoring of electronic communications in violation of 18 USC 2511. Furthermore,
IGs may not use in any IG investigation or investigative inquiry evidence derived from other evidence procured in
violation of 18 USC 2511 pursuant to 18 USC 2515.
i. Allegations not appropriate for inspector general action. Several types of allegations are not appropriate for IG
investigation or investigative inquiry as follows:
(1) Serious criminal misconduct. IGs will not investigate allegations of a nature that, if substantiated, would likely
constitute serious criminal misconduct. Many allegations or acts of omission may appear as criminal insofar as they
could be phrased as a dereliction of duty, violation of a regulation, or conduct unbecoming an officer, but that appear-
ance does not necessarily preclude an IG investigation or investigative inquiry. IGs will coordinate or consult with
the appropriate legal advisor in cases of this nature and with USACIDC officials if necessary.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 62
(2) Redress available through other means. An IG will not ordinarily investigate allegations where estab-
lished means of redress already exist to resolve such matters (see para 6–3g, above). Rather, IGs will only conduct
due-process reviews for complainants who have already used the established redress procedures but who feel that they
did not receive due process.
(3) Command investigations.
(a) IGs will not investigate allegations when the command elects to resolve those matters using a commander's
investigation or inquiry. IGs will always afford their commanders/directing authorities, or subordinate commanders
who have the means to investigate, the opportunity to resolve the matter in command channels.
(b) The IG will formally refer all allegations to the command using a referral memorandum that includes the rele-
vant information from the DA Form 1559 and associated continuation sheets, but the IG will not provide a copy of
the DA Form 1559 and/or its continuation sheets. If the command elects to investigate an allegation referred by the
IG, the IG will await the command product before finalizing the allegation in the IG system. Command products
include, but are not limited to, Rule for Courts-Martial 303 preliminary inquiries; Article 138: Uniform Code of Mil-
itary Justice inquiries or investigations; and preliminary inquiries, administrative investigations, and boards of officers
conducted under the provisions of AR 15 – 6. IGs will close out allegations investigated by the command in IGARS as
“command referred” and not "substantiated" or "not substantiated." The IG will upload a copy of the referral in IGARS
and enter into the case notes the nature of the allegation received, the date referred to the command, the date the
command accepted the referral, and the name of the complainant. Once the command completes the investigation, the
IG will review the final command product to ensure that the command addressed the allegations and any related issues
referred by the IG in a thorough and complete manner with findings supported by the evidence. If the command
investigation addressed all referred allegations and issues, the IG will annotate in the synopsis the form of action the
command took (for example, AR 15 – 6 investigation) and close the case in IGARS as “command referred.” Whereas
the IG may temporarily upload the command products in IGARS, the IG will remove all command investigations or
any other command products from the IGARS database (except those provided by the complainant as evidence) prior
to case closure.
(c) If the IG believes that the command investigation did not answer the allegations and issues referred by the IG,
the IG will provide the responsible commander the opportunity to resolve the unanswered issues or allegations. If the
commander and IG disagree about whether or not the commander addressed all allegations and issues referred by the
IG, the IG will present the matter to the next higher commander for action. If the next higher commander is the
directing authority, the IG should obtain a legal opinion from the servicing legal office to assist in determining whether
the command appropriately addressed the allegations and issues. The IG may recommend that the directing authority
direct the investigating commander to conduct another investigation, direct the IG to investigate, or determine that the
investigative actions taken were sufficient.
(d) If the directing authority directs the IG to investigate, the IG will complete an ROI or ROII and close the case
in IGARS with a conclusion of "substantiated" or "not substantiated." If the directing authority determines that the
investigating command did in fact answer all issues and allegations and the IG disagrees, the IG will annotate in the
case notes the concerns regarding the unanswered allegations and issues, refer the matter in IGARS to the next higher
IG office for review, and close the case in IGARS as “command referred.” The immediate higher command IG will
accept the referral to open a case in IGARS. If the higher command IG determines that the original command investi-
gation answered all allegations and issues, the higher command IG will close the case in IGARS as “command re-
ferred.” If the higher IG agrees with the referring IG, the higher IG will present the matter to his or her directing
authority with a recommendation that the directing authority either initiate an investigation into the unanswered mat-
ters or direct the subordinate command to conduct an additional investigation into those same matters. In either case,
the IG should obtain a legal review from a servicing legal office agreeing that the command investigation did not
address all the allegations or issues. If the directing authority determines that an additional investigation is not neces-
sary, the IG will note the decision and close the case in IGARS as “command referred” (this requirement does not
apply to DODIG Hotline Action cases or other cases in which DAIG is the OOR). TIG and DAIG’s Assistance division
chief, on behalf of TIG, can direct an investigation into matters even when the directing authority disagrees with his
or her local IG.
(e) IGs who refer allegations and related issues to the command will provide as part of the command referral all
relevant documentary evidence pertaining to the allegations and issues. The IG will inform the complainant or party
providing the documentary evidence in writing that the allegations, issues, and the documentary evidence provided
may be released to the command in unredacted form for a command investigation. The IG will obtain the document
release form prior to initiating the referral to the command. The IG will protect, to the maximum extent possible, the
confidentiality of the person(s) providing the documentary evidence. Refer to The Assistance and Investigations Guide
for further details.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 63
(f) These command-referral procedures also apply to cases received from DAIG's Assistance Division (SAIG – AC)
as part of the DOD Hotline Program outlined in DODI 7050.01. However, the IG must adhere to specific requirements
when resolving allegations or issues presented in DOD Hotline cases. One of the requirements is that the IG will craft
a Hotline Completion Report (HCR) for (1) all DOD action referrals, regardless of the findings made by the command,
and (2) all information referrals supported by a command’s inquiry / investigation resulting in a substantiated finding
(see para 7–3a). Instead of a DA Form 1559, the IG will formally refer all allegations to the command using a referral
memorandum based on the complaint submitted to the DOD Hotline and will then upload a copy of the referral in
IGARS.
Note. For HCR reporting purposes, and in accordance with DODI 7050.01, an “allegation” is defined as a wrongdoing
or impropriety that can be made against a person or a process. Consequently, all matters reported in an HCR will be
crafted strictly as “allegations” and then documented as "substantiated" or "not substantiated."
(g) The IG will enter into case notes the nature of the allegation received, the date of referral to the command, the
date the command accepted the referral, and the name of the complainant. Once the command completes the in-
quiry/investigation, the IG will review the command’s final report product to ensure that the inquiry/investigation
addressed all allegations and sufficiently met the standards outlined in DODI 7050.01. If the IG solely conducts an
investigation used as the supporting document for the HCR, then the IG must complete a “Quality Standards for
Hotline Inquiries” statement formally confirming that his or her investigative actions met all of the quality standards
listed in DODI 7050.01 and include it as a part of the command report, which the IG will verify. The IG will upload
the statement, the command product, and the HCR into IGARS and submit it to DAIG’s Hotline Branch. If the IG
determines that the command investigation sufficiently addressed all IG-referred allegations, the IG will annotate that
outcome in the synopsis. If the command product is found to be deficient (the IG identifies that the evidence does not
support the findings, or the IG disagrees with the command product), then the IG will coordinate with the command
to reconcile the deficiencies. If the IG believes the command did not satisfy the requirements and the identified defi-
ciencies, the directing authority must take the actions necessary to resolve them, or the IG may contact the chief of
DAIG’s Assistance Division, who, on behalf of TIG, can direct an investigation into allegations not adequately sup-
ported by evidence. The case will not be closed until DAIG, as the OOR, approves the case for closure. The IG will
upload all command-product documents into the IGARS database whenever an HCR is prepared based on a command
investigation. Refer to The Assistance and Investigations Guide for further details and how to code Hotline cases in
IGARS.
(4) Professional misconduct by an Army lawyer. An IG will refer all allegations involving professional misconduct
by an Army lawyer (military or civilian) through DAIG’s legal advisor to the Senior Counsel having jurisdiction over
the subject lawyer for disposition. Senior Counsels are the General Counsel of the Army, TJAG, the Command Coun-
sel of the Army Materiel Command, or the Chief Counsel of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as defined in AR
27 – 26. The entire portion of the IG record that is relevant to the allegation against the lawyer will go to the Senior
Counsel having jurisdiction over the subject lawyer (TIG’s approval is not required). If the Senior Counsel intends
to incorporate any part of the IG record into the final report, then TIG approval will be required. If an allegation does
not present credible evidence that raises a substantial question about the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness
to practice law, DAIG’s legal advisor, after consultation with the Senior Counsel concerned (or that person’s desig-
nated representative), may recommend the action be returned to the initiating IG without investigation by the Senior
Counsel involved. In such circumstances, DAIG’s Legal Advisor, in consultation with the IG who forwarded the case,
will determine whether further action is warranted. Should a complaint of professional misconduct form the basis of
a Whistleblower Reprisal allegation, the IG will contact DAIG’s Legal Advisor. Once the file has been transferred to
the relevant Senior Counsel, it does not need to be returned to the IG, and there is no requirement, except to comply
with DODIG’s Hotline response provisions, for the legal chain of command to report the resolution of the claim to
the IG.
(5) Mismanagement in a Legal Office. An IG will refer all allegations involving mismanagement in a legal office
through DAIG’s legal advisor to the Senior Counsel’s designated representative to receive such complaints for dispo-
sition under applicable regulations. The entire portion of the IG record that is relevant to the allegation against the
lawyer will go to the Senior Counsel’s designated representative. TIG’s approval is not required. If the Senior Counsel
intends to incorporate any part of the IG record into the final report, then TIG’s approval will be required. If the
complaint does not present credible evidence of mismanagement in a legal office, DAIG's Legal Advisor, after con-
sultation with the Senior Counsel’s designated representative, may recommend the action be returned to the initiating
IG without investigation by the Senior Counsel involved. In such circumstances, DAIG’s Legal Advisor, in consulta-
tion with the IG who forwarded the case, will determine whether further action is warranted. Should a complaint of
mismanagement form the basis of a Whistleblower Reprisal allegation, the IG will contact DAIG’s Legal Advisor.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 64
Once the file has been transferred to the relevant Senior Counsel, it does not need to be returned to the IG, and there
is no requirement, except to comply with DODIG’s Hotline response provisions, for the legal chain of command to
report the resolution of the claim to the IG.
(6) Professional misconduct by an Army chaplain. IGs who receive allegations against Army chaplains regarding
the quality of spiritual or religious counseling will open a case in IGARS, refer the allegations to the next higher
supervisory chaplain, and then close the case in IGARS. If no clear higher headquarters for the chaplain is apparent,
IGs will consult with the senior commander’s chaplain’s office. IGs will refer allegations concerning matters other
than professional misconduct to the chain of command.
(7) Civilian employee violations of the Hatch Act. IGs will refer allegations of Civilian employee violations of the
Hatch Act (5 USC 7322), limiting certain political activities of Federal employees, to the Office of Special Counsel
(https://osc.gov).
j. Allegations requiring referrals to other inspectors general. Several types of allegations require prompt referral
to other IGs as follows:
(1) Allegations against inspectors general. IGs will report all allegations against IGs (uniformed and Civilian) to
the next higher echelon IG and to the ACOM, ASCC, or DRU IG for appropriate action within 2 working days after
receipt. The ACOM, ASCC, or DRU IG will consult with DAIG’s Assistance Division to determine the best course
of action to resolve the allegation. TIG retains the authority to investigate the allegation.
(a) If the allegations involve violations of AR 20 – 1 or other IG policy, the next higher IG, in coordination with
DAIG’s Assistance Division, will normally conduct the investigation or investigative inquiry.
(b) If the allegation deals with misconduct or other non-IG-related offenses, the command may relieve the IG for
cause (or, in the case of Civilian IGs, suspend the IG from his or her duties temporarily or remove the individual) and
use other investigative methods (such as an AR 15 – 6 investigation) or administrative actions to determine the facts of
the case after coordinating with DAIG’s Assistance Division.
(c) An IG will obtain an information copy of the approved ROI or inquiry (with the IGAR, allegation, and
overall complaint attached) and forward it to both DAIG’s Assistance Division and the ACOM, ASCC, or DRU IG
concurrently with the report to the next higher echelon IG.
(d) Command IGs will notify TIG of any anticipated command or IG action before attempting to resolve
the allegation.
(e) TIG may suspend the investigated IG’s access to IGNET, IGARS, and all other IG information, including phys-
ical access to the IG office space within the command, until the allegation is resolved.
(2) Professional misconduct by Army Healthcare Providers. IGs do not investigate alleged professional misconduct
(standard care/quality of care) by Army Healthcare Providers. These matters are a military treatment facility (MTF)
responsibility in accordance with AR 40 – 68. Should the IG receive such a complaint, the IG’s primary role is to open
a case in IGARS, redirect the Soldier to the Patient Advocacy/Patient Experience Office at the MTF for redress in
accordance with DODI 6000.14, and then close the case in IGARS. IGs will seek IG technical support from the U.S.
Army Medical Command IG or the local servicing Regional Health Command IG for additional guidance and for
appropriate procedures specific to the USAR/ARNG.
k. Allegations against any Army officer, noncommissioned officer, or enlisted Soldier.
(1) All Army IGs will enter into the IGARS database within 2 working days after receipt the complete name of the
subject(s) or suspect(s) and the specific allegation(s) identified in any IGAR that has resulted in the initiation of an
Army IG investigation or investigative inquiry against an Army enlisted Soldier, NCO, WO, commissioned officer
(nonpromotable colonel and below), or Army Civilian employee. This reporting requirement further applies to Army
personnel serving in Joint and special assignments; Joint IGs in particular are required to report the initiation of an
investigation against an Army member to DAIG’s Assistance Division or Investigations Division by telephone or
encrypted email, since Joint organizations will not have access to IGARS. Additional reporting requirements for alle-
gations against colonels appear in paragraphs 1–4b(5)(c), above, and 7–1l(1), below.
(2) IGs will report to DAIG’s Investigations Division within 2 working days after receipt any allegation presented
to an Army IG against a colonel that will result in the same type of investigative action mentioned above,
including those colonels serving in Joint and special assignments (for promotable colonels, see para 7–1l, below).
(3) Both law and policy require a review of IG records in conjunction with all senior official assignments, promo-
tions, and retirements. Other IG records reviews are required for certain sensitive assignments and at the direction of
senior Army leaders. DAIG’s Records-Screening Division (SAIG – RSO) is the proponent for the screening of IG
records in support of the Personnel Suitability Screening Program. The intent of these requirements is to ensure the
selection of the best leaders and commanders, to consider information not available to the original board or in advance
of the board, and to protect the rights of individuals.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 65
l. Allegations against a senior official. Commanders, IGs, or principal HQDA staff officials must forward directly
to DAIG’s Investigations Division through IG channels any and all allegations of impropriety or misconduct
(including criminal allegations) and complaints against senior officials—defined as general officers (including
ARNGUS, USAR, and retired general officers), promotable colonels, PUSMAs, and SES Civilians—within 2 working
days of receipt when practicable. Special Government employees (scientific or professional, senior level, defense
intelligence senior level, and highly qualified experts) are considered senior officials and must also be reported. A
National Guard colonel becomes a senior official when the officer is submitted to compete on a General Officer
Federal Recognition Board (GOFRB) for a COE and remains a senior official until completion of the GOFRB process.
Colonels selected by the GOFRB, confirmed by the Senate for a COE, and assigned to a general officer billet are
considered senior officials. Colonels who receive a COE but are not assigned to a general officer billet are not con-
sidered senior officials until they are assigned to a general officer billet or nominated for a general officer billet.
Forward all complaints to usarmy.pentagon.hqda-otig.mbx.saig-in-office@mail.mil or by commercial telephone at
(703) 545 – 4545/4556. This reporting requirement also includes any other conduct of reasonable concern or signifi-
cance to the Army or DOD leadership, especially when the alleged misconduct includes an element of misuse of
position or of unauthorized personal benefit to the senior official, a Family member, or an associate.
(1) IGs will record all referrals of allegations against senior officials in the IGARS database in accordance with
the guidance outlined in The Assistance and Investigations Guide. Inspectors general will not conduct any fact-
finding into the nature of the allegations unless authorized by TIG, DTIG, or the chief of DAIG’s Investigations
Division.
(2) Only the SECARMY, the Under Secretary of the Army, the CSA, the VCSA, and TIG may authorize or direct
an investigation or investigative inquiry into allegations of improprieties or misconduct by a senior official
or an individual of equivalent grade or position. As a matter of Army policy, when such allegations are suspected
against a senior official or discovered during a non-IG investigation or inquiry (such as a commander’s inquiry, an
AR 15 –6 investigation, or CID investigation), the commander or command concerned will halt the inquiry or investi-
gation and report the allegations within 2 working days to DAIG’s Investigations Division (SAIG – IN) for further
action. As a specific exception, EEO and Anti-Deficiency Act inquiries or investigations may continue even if they
involve senior officials as long as DAIG’s Investigations Division has been notified.
(3) IGs who receive allegations against senior officials may tell their commanders the general nature of the allega-
tions and the identity of the person against whom the allegations were made—but only after contacting DAIG’s In-
vestigations Division for advice. An open investigation may already exist, and DAIG’s Investigations Division may
have already informed the commander. To protect the complainant’s confidentiality, the IG will not reveal either the
source or specific nature of the allegations. TIG will ensure that the appropriate commanders; the ACOM, ASCC, or
DRU IG; the Chief, Army Reserve; and the CNGB, receive additional information as appropriate.
(4) If the IG who receives the allegation works for the subject of the allegation, or if questions arise, the IG will
contact DAIG’s Investigations Division for guidance and to allow DAIG to contact the commander and avoid an
ethical dilemma for the IG.
(5) IGs or commanders will forward allegations against PMs or PEOs who are senior officials to DAIG’s Investi-
gations Division within 2 working days. If the allegations are against the PM or PEO staff, the IG of the supporting
LCMC will normally resolve the allegations. The LCMC IG will inform the PM or PEO of the general nature of the
allegations; the identity of the person against whom the allegations were made; and, upon the investigation or inves-
tigative inquiry’s completion, the conclusions when appropriate. Final ROI or ROII approval rests with the directing
authority.
(6) Questions should be addressed to DAIG’s Investigations Division at the U.S. Army Inspector General Agency
(SAIG–IN), 1700 Army Pentagon, Room 1E115A, Washington, DC 20310 – 1700 via email at usarmy.pentagon.hqda-
otig.mbx.saig-in-office@mail.mil or by commercial telephone at (703) 545 –4545/4556 or to DAIG’s legal advisor at
USAIGA (SAIG– JA), 1700 Army Pentagon, Room 1E132, Washington, DC 20310 –1700.
m. Allegations involving minor infractions. IGs must use judgment when determining whether or not an allegation
represents a minor infraction. The IG must make this determination during step 2, inspector general preliminary anal-
ysis, of the IGAP to determine if an allegation represents a minor infraction on its face or, after analyzing the com-
plaint, rises to the level of an impropriety requiring an IG or command-level investigation (see para 7–1d(2)(b)).
Designating an allegation as a minor infraction depends upon the judgment of the IG. However, all minor infractions
must be non-punitive in nature. Examples of minor infractions include inappropriate wear of the uniform (but not the
wearing of unauthorized awards), parking a privately owned vehicle in the wrong location, failing to return a salute,
and so on. Minor infractions will not include alleged incidents as described by the complainant during step 1, receive
the inspector general action request, in which the subject may have received personal benefit; there was detriment to
others; there was waste of government time, resources, personnel, or money; and / or there was an improper personal
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 66
relationship (personal or official). IGs may resolve minor infractions through teaching and training and often in con-
sultation with the directing authority or subordinate chain of command. In each case, the command IG will approve
any designation of an allegation as a minor infraction. This provision is not a license for IGs to reject allegations out
of hand. The IG must be able to defend why he or she considered the infraction to be minor and document that rationale
in the IGARS database.
7–2. Reports of investigation and investigative inquiry
a. Requirements. IGs will resolve all allegations by completing an ROI for an investigation and an ROII for an
investigative inquiry that provides a clear, complete, objective, and impartial analysis of all pertinent evidence gath-
ered. IGs will include in the ROI or ROII all copies of documents that the IG considered as evidence. The IG will
follow the formats for ROIs or ROIIs provided in The Assistance and Investigations Guide.
b. Conclusions. All IGs will use the investigative conclusions outlined below for all issues and allegations contained
in ROIs and ROIIs. These conclusions will contain the specific allegation(s) and issue(s) and state that the allegation
or issue occurred (substantiated or founded respectively) or did not occur (not substantiated or unfounded respec-
tively). These conclusions will establish IG findings regarding violations by a specific individual of an established
standard and will not be vague statements.
(1) IGs will use the conclusion of "substantiated" when a preponderance of credible evidence, as viewed by a
reasonable person, exists to support the allegation.
(2) IGs will use the conclusion of "not substantiated" when a preponderance of credible evidence, as viewed by a
reasonable person, does not exist to support the allegation.
(3) IGs will use the term "founded" for issues contained in the ROI or ROII that accompanied the allegation(s) to
show that the issues had merit and required resolution (see para 6–1a, above).
(4) IGs will use the term "unfounded" for issues contained in the ROI or ROII that accompanied the allegation(s)
to show that the issues lacked merit and did not require resolution (see para 6–1a, above).
(5) IGs will not use conclusions such as "the allegation was not substantiated, founded, or refuted" or phrases such
as "partially substantiated," "partially founded," or "substantiated in part."
(6) Inspectors general who close cases administratively or decline them will code those cases as assistance
in IGARS and clearly identify this fact in the synopsis and case notes, to include the authority for the action. IGs will
enter the complaint as an issue and will not enter a subject, suspect, or allegation.
(7) IGs will use the phrase "closed without findings" when the investigation or investigative inquiry is terminated
prior to conclusion due to the following special circumstances:
(a) The allegation concerns actions more than 3 years old. The IG will document the relevant time period and close
the case without findings.
(b) A legal process such as a court order or a settlement between the U.S. Government and a subject
and/or complainant includes a requirement to terminate all ongoing inquiries or investigations. The IG will obtain a
copy of the order or settlement, include it in the case file, and record the matter as "closed without findings."
(c) The Inspector General approves termination of an investigation or investigative inquiry (see para 7–
1d(8), above).
c. Recommendations. An IG will not recommend adverse action against an individual in an ROI, ROII, or hotline
completion report, except for whistleblower cases as discussed below. Commanders who contemplate requesting to
use the IG product for such action must balance the possible adverse consequences on the IG as a fair and impartial
fact-finder and possible due process rights of the individual that may require release of confidential testimony, per-
sonal information, and deliberative material (opinions, conclusions, and recommendations). An IG may recommend
administrative action to correct a mistake (for example, recovery of an improper temporary duty payment). In all cases,
IGs will recommend to "close the case" or "turn the case over to a follow-on investigator." In cases of substantiated
whistleblower reprisal allegations, IGs will make specific recommendations in accordance with the examples in The
Assistance and Investigations Guide and recommend forwarding the report for appropriate consideration for the re-
sponsible management official identified.
d. Processing. Inspectors general will process all ROIs, ROIIs, and hotline completion reports as follows:
(1) Command IGs will ensure the directing authority is aware of—and familiar with—the ROI, ROII, or hotline
completion report approval and notification process. Directing authorities will approve all ROIs unless a deputy com-
mander is designated to do so in writing. The directing authority may also reserve the right to approve ROIIs or hotline
completion reports with substantiated allegations. However, command IGs can approve ROIIs consistent with written
authority from the directing authority. Command IGs will also notify the directing authority if the IG substantiates the
allegation.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 67
(2) Prior to approval, the command IG will forward the completed ROI, ROII, or hotline completion report to the
supporting SJA or command counsel to conduct a legal sufficiency review. Legal reviews are required for all ROIIs
or hotline completion reports with substantiated findings and all ROIs regardless of the findings. Once the legal suf-
ficiency review concurring with the substantiated findings is complete, the command IG will forward all ROIs to the
directing authority for approval.
(3) The directing authority or command IG (depending on the methodology used and guidance provided by the
directing authority) will approve or disapprove the report in its entirety or in part and sign the report to indicate ap-
proval or disapproval. If the directing authority disapproves the IG ROI, the IG must work with the directing authority
to resolve the disapproval by conducting additional investigative actions as necessary in order to obtain approval. If
the IG is unable to resolve the disapproval, the IG should contact the next higher IG and/or the Assistance Division
for guidance. Once approved, the directing authority will then take action on the approved portions that are within the
authority and responsibility of the directing authority. For whistleblower reprisal and DOD Hotline cases, a record of
these actions in memorandum form will be attached to the final report and all subsequent copies.
(4) The IG will forward through IG channels to the next higher commander an ROI, ROII, or hotline completion
report, or any portion of the ROI, ROII, or hotline completion report, complete with recommendations, that requires
action at levels above that of the directing authority. Each higher commander will indicate approval or disapproval
and take appropriate action on matters within their authority to affect. IGs will forward remaining matters through IG
channels, with appropriate recommendations, to the command echelon best suited to address those matters.
(5) When TIG directs an investigation, the immediate commander of the IG who conducted the investigation will
indicate concurrence or nonconcurrence of the investigation’s conclusions. The IG will then forward the report through
IG channels to TIG. As the directing authority and IG OOR, TIG has final approval authority of the report.
7–3. Special investigations and inquiries
In addition to the investigative and inquiry requirements addressed in this chapter, IGs will perform several other types
of special investigations and inquiries, some of which require the same procedures and guidelines addressed in this
regulation and in The Assistance and Investigations Guide.
a. Department of Defense Hotline complaints. DAIG’s Hotline Branch will refer DOD Hotline-referred complaints
as either action referrals or information referrals.
(1) For action referrals, the receiving IG staff section, as the lowest echelon IG OOI, will refer the complaint to the
command for action. In these cases, DAIG is always the OOR. The IG will obtain a copy of the command report and
confirm that it sufficiently addressed the allegations contained in the DOD Hotline complaint. If the command report
fails to sufficiently address all allegations, the IG will inform the commander of the deficiencies and request correc-
tion. If the commander elects not to investigate any or all of the matters presented in the Hotline complaint, the IG
will resolve the matter(s) by conducting an assistance inquiry, investigative inquiry, or investigation. In either sce-
nario, the IG will prepare an HCR based on either the command ROI or inquiry and/or the evidence obtained during
the IG investigative actions per DODI 7050.01 and The Assistance and Investigations Guide. All HCRs reporting
substantiated outcomes will be accompanied by a separate, written legal review in memorandum format and, per
DODI 7050.01, include information on corrective and security clearance actions. The DOD Hotline initially informs
complainants that they can submit a FOIA request to their office if they wish to know the findings of their case.
DAIG’s Assistance Division will prepare and send all final notifications to subjects/suspects, including those person-
nel that were the subjects/suspects of command investigations (see para 7–1i (3)(f) for further guidance).
(2) For information referrals, the receiving IG staff section that performs the OOI and OOR responsibilities will
refer the complaint(s) and evidence contained in the DOD Hotline referral to the command for information. Although
it is usually in the command's best interest to address matters presented in information-referred complaints, the com-
mand is not obligated to do so. When matters presented in information-referred complaints are addressed and substan-
tiated allegations result, DAIG, per DODI 7050.01, will convert information referrals to action referrals, which require
the preparation of an HCR and completion of the actions specified in paragraph 7–3a(1) above, and submit the ap-
proved HCR to DOD Hotline. Specifically for HCR reporting purposes, an "allegation" is defined as a wrongdoing or
impropriety that can be made against a person or a process; all matters reported in an HCR will be crafted strictly as
"allegations" and then documented as "substantiated" or "not-substantiated." If there are no substantiated outcomes,
the IG OOR will close the case and document who resolved the matters (the IG or the command) with no HCR
required. See The Assistance and Investigations Guide for further guidance.
b. Allegations of whistleblower reprisal. The purpose and intent of the Whistleblower Protection Act is to encour-
age Soldiers to come forward in good faith with complaints of wrongdoing that need to be addressed and provide them
protection for doing so. Under 10 USC 1034, implemented by DODD 7050.06, IGs within military departments are
authorized to conduct investigations for reprisal allegations presented directly to them by Servicemembers. IGs will
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 68
direct other reprisal complainants to the appropriate agency. The complainant must present the matter to an IG in order
to obtain the protections afforded under 10 USC 1034.
(1) Prohibition on restricting a lawful communication with an IG or Member of Congress. Persons subject to this
regulation will not restrict anyone in any manner from lawfully communicating with those individuals mentioned
above. This prohibition includes communications with the IGs of other Services and Federal agencies. For appropri-
ated fund Civilians, the prohibition further includes disclosures to the special counsel or another employee designated
by the head of the agency to receive such disclosures (see 5 USC 2302). For NAF employees, the prohibition includes
disclosures to any Civilian employee or member of the armed forces designated by law or by the Secretary of Defense
to receive such disclosures (see 10 USC 1587). IGs may also address allegations regarding the restriction of a Soldier’s
ability to communicate with other authorized agencies (chain of command, member of an inspection or audit team,
safety officer, and so forth) under Army regulations, but these restrictions do not qualify as statutory reprisal.
(2) Prohibitions against reprisal.
(a) Civilian whistleblower. Persons subject to this regulation will not take, or threaten to take, an unfavorable per-
sonnel action or withhold, or threaten to withhold, a favorable personnel action with respect to any employee or ap-
plicant for employment as reprisal for communications protected by 5 USC 2302(b)(8) or 10 USC 1587 as applicable.
(b) Military whistleblower. Persons subject to this regulation will not take, or threaten to take, an unfavorable per-
sonnel 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 or being perceived as making or preparing, a protected communication. Pro-
tected communications are all communications made to an IG; MC; member of a DOD audit, inspection, investigation,
or law enforcement organization; any person or organization in the chain of command; persons involved in a court-
martial proceeding; or any other person or organization designated pursuant to regulations or other established admin-
istrative procedures for such communications; and testifying, or otherwise participating in or assisting in an investi-
gation or proceeding related to a protected communication, or filing, causing to be filed, participating in, or otherwise
assisting in an action brought under 10 USC 1034. The term “protected communication,” while it applies to all com-
munications with an IG or MC, is a communication to the chain of command or an agency authorized to receive such
communications in which a Soldier complains of, or discloses information that the Soldier reasonably believes con-
stitutes evidence of, a violation of law or regulation, including a law or regulation prohibiting rape, sexual assault, or
other sexual misconduct in violation of Articles 120 through 120c of the UCMJ; sexual harassment or unlawful
discrimination; gross mismanagement; a gross waste of funds or other resources; an abuse of authority; a substantial
and specific danger to public health or safety; or a threat by another Soldier or employee of the Federal government
that indicates a determination or intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury to members of the armed forces or Civilian
or damage to military, Federal, or Civilian property. Refer to the current version of DODD 7050.06 for up-to-date
guidance on identifying a protected communication.
(c) Prohibition against making an unlawful communication with an IG, MC, or the OSC. Persons subject to this
regulation will not knowingly make an unlawful communication with an IG, MC, or OSC. An unlawful communica-
tion is a false official statement under UCMJ, Art. 107. Note that unlawful means that the Soldier making the complaint
knowingly made a false statement, not that the Soldier’s complaint was ultimately not substantiated.
(d) Persons subject to the UCMJ. Persons subject to the UCMJ who violate the above prohibitions are subject to
punishment under UCMJ, Art. 92. They are also subject to adverse administrative action authorized by the United
States Code or Federal regulations.
(e) Persons not subject to the UCMJ. Any Army Civilian employee who violates the above prohibitions is subject
to disciplinary action or criminal prosecution authorized by the United States Code or Federal regulations.
(f) Reporting prohibited actions. Persons who believe an action taken or threatened as prohibited by paragraphs 7–
3b(1) through (3), above, has occurred will report the circumstances to the chain of command or to the local IG.
Alternatively, persons who believe a prohibited action has occurred may report the circumstances to a higher head-
quarters IG. For guidance to IGs on resolving reprisal cases, see paragraphs 7–3b and c, below.
(3) Procedures for investigating Soldier allegations of whistleblower reprisal. If a Soldier presents a reprisal alle-
gation to an IG that appears to meet the criteria outlined in 10 USC 1034, the IG who receives the allegation will
separate all other issues or allegations from the complaint and then forward only the reprisal complaint and all sup-
porting documentation directly to DAIG's WIOB (part of DAIG's Assistance Division) via email at usarmy.penta-
gon.hqda-otig.mbx-ac-whistleblower@mail.mil. (See The Assistance and Investigations Guide for specific details.)
The IG who receives the complaint must notify WIOB within 5 business days. In turn, WIOB will forward the reprisal
complaint to DODIG for processing. To determine if the allegation may be whistleblower reprisal, the IG will consult
The Assistance and Investigations Guide for the applicable criteria or contact WIOB for guidance at commercial (703)
545 – 1845 or DSN 865 –1845. An allegation of whistleblower reprisal may be untimely at the DODIG’s discretion if
the allegation is made more than 1 year after the Soldier became aware of an adverse or unfavorable personnel action
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 69
that the Soldier believes was taken in reprisal. The name, grade, identification number, unit assignment, address, and
phone number of the Soldier are required for DODIG to approve the allegation. IGs will not investigate third-party or
anonymous allegations of whistleblower reprisal unless the affected Soldier requests the IG to investigate. The affected
Soldier must want the IG to address the allegation and be willing to cooperate with the IG. See The Assistance and
Investigations Guide for additional guidance for addressing third-party reprisal complaints. Immediately after for-
warding the complaint to the WIOB, the IG will enter the referral into the IGARS database as a standard IGAR (see
The Assistance and Investigations Guide). If other issues or allegations accompanied the reprisal allegation(s), the IG
will open a separate standard IGAR and address those matters as appropriate.
(4) DAIG’s Assistance Division (SAIG – AC) will open a case upon receipt, track the case as a standard IGAR, and
send an acknowledgement letter informing the complainant that DAIG received his or her complaint.
(5) Whistleblower reprisal investigations normally take place at the same level of the IG staff section that received
the complaint. However, in some cases, the ACOM, ASCC, or DRU IG will investigate the allegation based on work-
load and/or circumstances surrounding the case.
(a) Upon receipt of the notification, WIOB will analyze the complaint to determine if the allegation meets the
requirements for statutory whistleblower reprisal and to establish a way ahead. Essentially, WIOB will determine if
the complaint merits IG investigation or may be resolved by some lesser form of inquiry. Since the guidelines and
processing procedures for whistleblower reprisal investigations sometimes change subject to Congressional action or
DODIG guidance, IGs will refer to the current version of The Assistance and Investigations Guide (or interim guidance
provided by WIOB) for the most updated procedures and remain in contact with WIOB as necessary.
(b) The DODIG is the final approving authority for whistleblower reprisal cases that are dismissed or closed without
a full investigation in accordance with DODD 7050.06. If the Army IG dismisses a complaint or closes it with less
than a full investigation and DODIG concurs, WIOB will send a dismissal letter to the complainant and close the case.
WIOB will also provide a copy of the dismissal letter to the appropriate ACOM, ASCC, or DRU IG and ensure that
the suspect data and allegations remain uploaded in IGARS.
(c) If WIOB determines that an investigation is required following WIOB’s review of the complaint, then DAIG’s
Assistance Division, as the OOR, will task the ACOM, ASCC, or DRU IG to investigate the allegation as the OOI.
Along with the tasking, DAIG’s Assistance Division will forward the results of the review to the ACOM, ASCC, or
DRU IG for use in an investigation. Upon completion of the investigation, the ACOM, ASCC, or DRU IG will forward
the completed whistleblower ROI to DAIG’s Assistance Division (WIOB) for review and ultimate transmittal to
DODIG, preferably as a document embedded in IGARS but acceptable as either an email attachment or in hard copy
addressed to U.S. Army Inspector General Agency, Whistleblower Investigations Oversight Branch (SAIG – AC),
1700 Army Pentagon, 1D116, Washington, DC 20310 – 1700, along with their review and assessment of the subordi-
nate IG’s recommended finding. If DAIG or the ACOM/ASCC/DRU IG review determines that the whistleblower
ROI is insufficient, that organization will either return the ROI to a subordinate IG for additional work, amendment,
or revision or prepare an addendum that addresses the identified shortfalls or overturns the subordinate IG’s determi-
nations. Any change to the recommended determination requires a new review for legal sufficiency prior to forwarding
the case to WIOB for review. Once WIOB sends the report to DODIG and DODIG approves the findings, DAIG’s
Assistance Division will then inform the ACOM/ASCC/DRU IG; send final notifications to the subjects, suspects,
and complainant; and close the case.
(d) DAIG’s Investigations Division (SAIG – IN) will maintain oversight on whistleblower cases involving senior
officials.
(6) Only allegations of whistleblower reprisal investigated by the IG afford the complainant the full protections of
10 USC 1034. If a complainant brings the allegation to the commander, the commander should refer the complainant
to the IG. If the complainant declines to file a whistleblower reprisal complaint with the IG, the commander may then
explain to the complainant the protections afforded him or her by taking the matter to the IG. If the complainant insists
or prefers that the commander resolve the matter, then the commander, who retains full authority to investigate matters
within his or her command in accordance with AR 600 – 20, may investigate but not as a violation of 10 USC 1034.
c. Civilian employee and Department of Defense contractor allegations of whistleblower reprisal. In all of the in-
stances listed above, the IG will open an IGAR in the IGARS database, code the request as assistance, and close the
IGAR. The IG must, however, take immediate action to address an identified danger in those cases where the com-
plainant reasonably believes the information he or she has provided includes specific evidence of a substantial danger
to public health and safety or to the health and safety of a Soldier, DOD employee, or Family member. The IG should
refer the allegation to the command as prescribed in paragraph 7–1b (3) of this regulation while maintaining com-
plainant and witness confidentiality to the greatest extent possible. Consultation with the command’s and DAIG’s
Legal Advisor is advised.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 70
(1) Civilian, nonappropriated fund, and DOD contractor allegations of whistleblower reprisal. Requirements of 5
USC 2302(b)(8) provides similar coverage to appropriated fund (Army Civilian) employees as discussed in paragraph
b, above, for members of the Armed Forces. Coverage to NAF employees is provided under 10USC1587. Coverage
to contractor employees is provided under 10USC2409(a). Except as specified in paragraphs (2) and (3) below, when
a Civilian employee presents an allegation of reprisal for protected disclosure to an IG, the IG must—
(a) Inform the appropriated fund Civilian employee of the right to present the reprisal allegation to the OSC or
DODIG (via the DODIG website) and advise appropriated fund employees that they may contact either OSC or
DODIG directly.
(b) Advise NAF employees of their right to submit reprisal complaints to DODIG in accordance with DODD
1401.03.
(c) Inform contractor employees that the provisions of 10USC2409(a) govern their right to present reprisal allega-
tions, and advise contractor employees to contact the DODIG directly.
(2) Civilian appropriated fund employees within the intelligence community. The requirements of Presidential Pol-
icy Directive 19 (PPD – 19) provide similar coverage to appropriated fund employees serving within the intelligence
community, as discussed in paragraph b above, for members of the armed forces. When a Civilian employee within
the intelligence community presents an IG with an allegation of reprisal for a protected disclosure, the IG must inform
the employee that DODIG addresses such complaints in accordance with 5USC2302 (b). The IG will inform the
appropriated fund employee of the right to present the reprisal allegation directly to DODIG through the DODIG
Hotline on the Internet at https://www.dodig.mil/hotline/reprisalcomplaint.html, by phone at (800) 424 – 9098 or by
email at hotline@doding.mil.
(3) Civilian executive branch employees' and currently military member’s eligibility for access to classified infor-
mation. The requirements of PPD – 19 prohibit affecting an employee's eligibility for access to classified information
as an act of reprisal for a protected disclosure. When a Civilian employee or military member presents an IG with an
allegation of this type of reprisal, the IG must inform the employee that DODIG addresses such complaints. For
military members, follow the procedures for the normal whistleblower notification but include a comment indicating
that the complaint includes a security clearance action subject to PPD – 19. WIOB will coordinate with DODIG. The
IG must inform the employee of the right to present the reprisal allegation directly to DODIG through the DODIG
Hotline on the Internet at https://www.dodig.mil/hotline/reprisalcomplaint.html, by phone at (800) 424 –9098, or by
email at hotline@doding.mil.
d. Trafficking in persons. TIP is defined as sex trafficking in which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud,
or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such an act has not attained 18 years of age; or the recruitment,
harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services through the use of force, fraud, or
coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery. TIP includes sex
tourism, prostitution, forced labor, domestic servitude, and child soldiers. It often involves fraudulent ads for employ-
ment (maids, nannies, modeling), promises of travel, threats, intimidation, and violence. Army IGs must take action
not only when receiving TIP allegations through IG channels but any time the IG comes across information that TIP
is taking place. The IG must document the complaint, or information, in IGARS as appropriate and refer the matter to
CID. An IG investigation will be a last resort given the criminal and law enforcement implications involved. Entering
all of this information into IGARS, as required by this regulation, is crucial to comply with the FY 13 NDAA require-
ments. If CID accepts a referral of a TIP case involving defense contractors, the IG must notify the "head of the
executive agency" that awarded the contract. If the law enforcement entity does not find probable cause that TIP
occurred, then the IG should decide whether contracting officer representative action, agency referral, IG investiga-
tion, or no further action is appropriate. Once again, the IG must document this decision in IGARS. And in the specific
case of TIP allegations involving defense contractors, the IG must also release any resulting IG ROI/ROII to the
directing authority and to the "head of the executive agency" that awarded the contract—but only if defense contractors
are involved. The IG should coordinate with the legal advisor throughout the entire TIP case.
Chapter 8
The Role of Inspectors General in Unified Land Operations
8–1. Inspector general—operational role
Since its inception, the IG system has played a key role across the full spectrum of conflict from the Revolutionary
War to the global war on terrorism and will continue to do so in future contingency operations. The Army IG system
made its earliest contributions to the Army through training and maintaining readiness. As part of this IG system, all
IGs serve as key assessment advisors so their commanders can make informed decisions when planning, preparing,
and executing military operations. When the command is deployed in whole or in part for unified land operations, IGs
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 71
have the same role as they have in peacetime—extending the eyes, ears, voice, and conscience of the commander. The
basic IG functions do not change—only the conditions under which IGs perform them. An IG will still work to
enhance the command’s warfighting and readiness capabilities by performing inspections, assistance, investigations,
and teaching and training. However, the IG’s priorities and focus during military operations must remain on tasks and
systems that directly relate to the command’s readiness across the full spectrum of conflict and all operational envi-
ronments. Although the guidelines in this chapter generally apply to Army IGs not operating as Joint IGs in the
theater of operations, many of the considerations and provisions outlined herein are still applicable for Army IGs
who become Joint IGs as a result of their parent Army headquarters becoming a JTF or some other type of Joint
headquarters (see chap 9, below).
a. All IGs, whether in a theater of operations or in a supporting theater (CONUS or OCONUS), have a major
operational mission that is dynamic in nature. The command’s mission and phases of the operation at the time dictate
the IG’s specific role. The IG must become involved early in the commander’s planning process and understand the
commander’s intent, concept of the operation, and guidance.
(1) As extensions of the commander’s eyes and ears, IGs in deploying units will focus on high-payoff issues that
impact the command’s ability to mobilize rapidly, deploy, and sustain itself; to prepare for military operations; to
conduct operations; to redeploy and to reintegrate; and to assist the command in reconstituting and preparing for the
next mission. Deployed IGs can expect to address matters related to deployment readiness, combat training, force
protection, supply and services efficiency, intelligence oversight, captured equipment and detainee operations, stand-
ards of discipline, and Soldier welfare issues.
(2) Supporting theater IGs generally focus on many of the same issues as deploying unit IGs. Mobilization,
deployment, sustainment, preparation for combat, pre-reintegration, and reconstitution are all issues of major concern.
Supporting IGs have also played major roles in reception, staging, onward movement, and integration of forces into
the area of operations; theater level supply and personnel replacement operations; redeployment operations; and other
operational level functions.
(3) Both deployed and supporting IGs will continue to resolve Soldier morale and welfare issues, Family issues,
Army Civilian employee or other Civilian issues and concerns, and other issues consistent with the fundamental mis-
sions of the IG system.
b. State and USAR IGs have a unique focus in the conduct of unified land operations. They must be prepared to
assist with the deployment of ARNG and USAR units and with those nondeploying units. State and USAR IGs must
also be capable of responding to increased activity from Family members of deploying and nondeploying ARNG and
USAR units as well as Family members of personnel from all other Regular Army, ARNG, and Army Reserve units
and units from other Services.
c. The IG must have an in-depth understanding and appreciation of the mission, commander’s intent, operational
situation, key tasks, resources, and courses of action. This knowledge prepares the IG to answer Soldier and leader
concerns and to evaluate effectively and efficiently the execution of the command’s mission.
d. An IG’s ability to support the commander’s operational contingency and deployment requirements will depend
on prior planning and the IG serving as an integral part of the unit’s mission planning and exercise process. The IG
must ensure that the commander and coordinating staff understand and are familiar with the IG’s role in unified land
operations and the contributions the IG can make to the operational effort. The IG must develop and promote this
understanding in peacetime through participation in training exercises with the commander and staff.
e. The IG operational planning effort provides critical input to the IG mission-essential task list. The IG planning
effort must incorporate flexibility, include provisions for unified land operations (the ability to perform all four IG
functions), and be oriented toward contingency operations in a developing theater. Planning will consider all phases
of the operation, to include reset and reconstitution as required.
f. Upon unit activations and deployments, nondeploying supporting IGs must be capable of providing IG support
to residual units or activities that did not deploy and the Families of deployed Soldiers.
g. Deployed IGs must also be prepared for reporting and tracking requirements to the Joint IG staff section
of the combatant command (or possibly JTF) they support in the deployed theater.
8–2. Organizing for unified land operations
The organization of the IG staff section will vary depending on the status and location of the unit (that is, CONUS-
based or forward-deployed). IGs must consider both deployed and stay-behind capabilities in personnel and equip-
ment. These considerations especially apply to IGs who serve both a tactical command and an installation. The IG
will consider the following factors in the planning process:
a. Identify the proper TOE and TDA personnel combinations to retain flexibility for the deploying elements while
maintaining adequate resources at home station to meet supporting IG operational requirements. If USAR and ARNG
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 72
units are assigned to the command for the operational mission, the IG staff section will request augmenting IGs to
represent the unique requirements and issues concerning these components. Once deployed, these augmenting IGs
will work directly for the directing authority’s command IG.
b. Identify individual mobilization augmentees and IRR IG staffing needs (IGs will identify individual mobilization
augmentee personnel by name).
c. Determine training requirements for Reserve Component (RC) personnel identified upon activation.
d. Consider appointing and training acting IGs to cover remote locations or dramatic increases in unit strength or
positioning assistant IGs forward with brigade combat teams to maintain an IG presence throughout the area
of operations.
e. Organize to support modular deployments by deploying IG teams to support a subordinate unit on extended
deployment.
f. Determine the method of coverage in the theater of operations where units may be widely dispersed. Indicate the
methodology in the operations plan or operations order.
g. Determine the IG operations bases required at home station, staging bases, and deployed locations, to include the
commands posts from which the IG will operate.
8–3. Resources required to support unified land operations
a. Personnel. The command IG must conduct manpower reviews of MTOEs and TDAs to ensure that adequate
provisions are in place for workload increases to support deployed and wartime efforts. Coordinate all MTOE and
TDA updates and actions with the force structure analyst in DAIG’s Operations and Support Division (see
para 2–1b, above). Training requirements for personnel selected to serve as IGs during unified land operations will
remain the same as outlined in paragraphs 2– 4 and 4 –2, above, and appendix B, below. All IGs must maintain their
ability to perform all four IG functions in order to provide full-service IG staff sections when deployed. TIGS
will assist in providing training materials and sustainment training as required.
b. Equipment. The command IG must conduct a periodic review of equipment authorization documents to ensure
that adequate deployment equipment is available such as tactical vehicles, tents, field telephones, tactical computers,
radios, and so on. Electronic data hardware and software considerations for IGNET, as well as supporting communi-
cations requirements, are a critical part of IG contingency planning, which must include both supporting and deploying
IG requirements. Connectivity for IGNET and reach-back communications are vital to mission accomplishment for
the deployed IG. Deploying IGs must have active IGNET accounts as well as contact information for DAIG’s Infor-
mation Resource Management Division (SAIG – IR) so that DAIG may communicate with the deployed unit’s chief
information officer concerning connectivity and other technical problems.
c. Reference material. Access to regulatory and other policy standards contained in departmental and command
publications is essential to performing all four IG functions. An IG must include this requirement in deployment and
contingency planning. Some hard copy documents will be necessary, but access to reference material through elec-
tronic connectivity (such as the Internet) or the use of electronic-based systems (such as CD–ROMs) is an important
consideration.
8–4. Staff estimates
IGs are essential staff members throughout the full spectrum of unified land operations. Involvement in the military
decisionmaking process from receipt of the mission to production of the order is continuous. The command IG will
have a clear understanding of the higher headquarters’ order, the command’s mission, and the commander’s intent.
The command IG must ensure that the commander’s expectations of the IG’s role and functions are addressed early
in the mission-analysis process. Once the command IG understands the mission and the commander’s intent, the IG
is in a position to formulate or plan detailed mission requirements. This process will include anticipated IG actions
(inspections, assistance, investigations, teaching and training) during each phase of the operation, such as mobiliza-
tion, deployment, sustainment, redeployment, reintegration, and reconstitution. IGs will prepare IG estimates and an-
nexes and provide relevant input to the planning process as required.
8–5. Inspector general functions in unified land operations
a. Inspections. Inspections are the most direct way an IG can influence the command’s mission readiness. As units
prepare for unified land operations, previously unscheduled inspections and unannounced inspections often occur. IGs
must prepare to verify organizational readiness and identify mobilization issues for resolution. Inspectors general
may find themselves performing a mix of special inspections of systemic issues and general inspections of
units. Either the tactical situation or the commander’s need for timely feedback to make critical decisions may cause
the IG to compress the IG inspections process (see para 5–1m, above). If the IG conducts a general (compliance-
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 73
oriented) inspection of a unit, the IG will exercise great care with the results, since many of the findings will involve
local issues from the inspected command that require attribution to resolve (for example, the name of a supply sergeant
who needs additional training to enhance a unit’s readiness). The IG must involve TIG in these cases when breaching
confidentiality becomes an issue (see para 1 – 12, above). Generally, the commander will furnish broad guidance con-
cerning key issues. IGs will ultimately determine IG inspection topics by the command’s mission, the commander’s
intent, and the operational environment. To be effective, the IG must include only those high-payoff issues in the
inspection plan that the commander approves. Inspectors general must use technical channels to share the results
of inspection trends and findings both inside and outside of the command. See The Inspector General Reference Guide,
available from TIGS’s website, for a further discussion on the types of inspection topics an IG must consider during
unified land operations. IGs must also be mindful that inspections in a deployed environment may result in the inclu-
sion of classified information in the IG inspection report. Since these reports may contain unit capabilities and weak-
nesses that the enemy can exploit, IGs must ensure that the report is classified and distributed according to its
classification requirements.
b. Assistance. Both deployed and supporting IGs can expect increases in requests for information and assistance.
Historically, assistance cases have represented the majority of the deployed IG’s workload. A thorough analysis of
each phase of the operational spectrum will provide insights into the nature of the requests that IGs can expect. IG
technical channels and increased flexibility are essential to responsive support for commanders, Soldiers, and other
interested parties. Whenever possible, the deployed IG must forward assistance inquiries initiated outside the opera-
tional theater to the appropriate IG for resolution. For example, an IGAR concerning a USAR issue that the deployed
IG staff section cannot resolve will go to the IG, USARC, for subsequent referral to the appropriate reserve command’s
IG staff section. See The Inspector General Reference Guide for examples of the types of issues an IG can expect
to encounter during unified land operations.
c. Investigations. The IG investigations function during unified land operations differs little from investigations
conducted during garrison operations. Investigations conducted while deployed are more difficult to complete because
of the limited access to the commander, time and distance factors, and a generally greater reliance upon technical
channel support from other IGs who may also be deployed. Records-release policies for ROIs or ROIIs do not change
during unified land operations.
d. Teaching and training. As extensions of the commander’s eyes and ears, the IG will view the teaching and train-
ing function as a key factor in a unit’s ultimate success and therefore plan its inclusion as a fundamental portion of all
other IG activities. Particularly important in this process is the IG’s ability to acquire and understand the changing
regulatory and other policy standards inherent throughout the spectrum of conflict. The IG will know and understand
knowledge management operations and help to coordinate these requirements with the command’s information re-
source manager, functional proponents, and IGs operating in split locations.
8–6. Law of war violations
The IG is one of several means for receiving reports of law of war violations in accordance with DODD 2311.01E. If
the IGs receives a report of a law of war violation, the IG will process it in accordance with DODD 2311.01E. The
law of war is that part of international law that regulates the conduct of armed hostilities.
a. Initial reports. A reportable incident is a possible, suspected, or alleged violation of the law of war. An IG who
becomes aware of a reportable incident must—
(1) Report the incident as soon as possible to the commander (directing authority) for action. The Law of War
Program requires the commander to submit a report of any reportable incident through command channels by the most
expeditious means available to the responsible combatant command’s commander.
(2) Inform the next higher echelon IG with a concurrent report to TIG through DAIG’s Assistance Division
(SAIG–AC) using IG communications within 2 working days after receipt.
b. Preliminary analysis. An IG who receives IGARs involving alleged violations of the law of war, whether
committed by or against U.S. or enemy personnel, must ensure prompt referral of the allegation to the appropriate
agency or conduct IG factfinding when appropriately directed. The IG will coordinate closely with the command’s
SJA in determining a recommended course of action to investigate and resolve IGARs containing a law of war viola-
tion. Investigative assets from USACIDC, or another Service’s criminal investigation office, have the primary respon-
sibility to investigate suspected or alleged war crimes. For minor offenses, the commander’s organic investigative and
legal support assets can investigate using AR 15 – 6 or other command investigative procedures, or the commander can
direct the IG to conduct an investigative inquiry or investigation.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 74
8–7. Exercises
Realistic training scenarios and exercises are excellent tools for determining how to operate in all environments. As
with any staff element, the IG staff section must participate as full-fledged members in all command post exercises,
field training exercises, Combat Training Center rotations, mission rehearsal exercises, and mobilization or deploy-
ment readiness and certification exercises. Command IGs and their staff section IGs will not perform non-IG duties
(such as liaison officer, rear command post commander, or detachment NCO in charge) during training exercises that
would detract from the IGs’ operational mission or compromise their ability to remain fair and impartial.
During these exercises IGs will include concurrent, split operations training involving the home station IG staff sec-
tion to practice reach-back procedures and other techniques normally used during operational deployments. IGs will
routinely publish IG-related instructions in their organization’s operational plans and orders.
Chapter 9
The Role of Inspectors General in Joint Operations
9–1. Joint and expeditionary mindset
Army IGs must be prepared to support their commands and commanders not only in an Army-centric environment
but in a Joint environment as well. The most likely scenario for an Army IG staff section becoming a Joint IG staff
section is as part of a JTF. The commander of one of the ten combatant commands may appoint a subordinate Army
headquarters (ASCC/corps/division) as a JTF for a specific contingency operation. When an Army headquarters be-
comes a JTF, the IG staff section in turn becomes a Joint IG staff section. The same basic IG functions will apply, but
the IG staff section must adapt to include IGs from the other Services represented in the JTF and adhere to Joint IG
policy and doctrine as promulgated by the proponent for the Joint IG system—the IG, DOD.
9–2. The role of the inspector general in Joint military operations
Army IGs must fully understand the basic precepts of Joint operations as outlined in Joint Publication 3 – 0 and the
steps for establishing, deploying, and re-deploying a JTF as outlined in Joint Publication 3 – 33, Joint Task Force
Headquarters. By understanding the nature and complexity of Joint operations, the Army IG will be able to adapt more
readily to the unique demands and needs of supporting a commander who is now responsible for various
units from other Services and, possibly, from other nations. The IG will still serve the newly appointed JTF com-
mander as that commander’s eyes, ears, voice, and conscience but within the guidelines of established Joint IG policy
and doctrine as promulgated by the DODIG. The same considerations for operations in a deployed environment as
outlined in chapter 8, above, apply. However, the Army IG system as outlined in this regulation will no longer apply
unless dealing strictly with Army issues from subordinate, Army-only commands or if Joint IG policy has been with-
drawn or not established. If Joint IG policy or doctrine is not in effect, the IG will adhere to the Army IG system as
outlined in this regulation to support the JTF commander. The IG must be familiar with the policies and procedures
of the other Services’ IG systems in order to apply those systems appropriately to personnel from those respective
Services. For example, the Joint IG staff section, although formed around the core of an Army IG staff section that is
now adhering to Joint IG policy and doctrine, may have to use Air Force IG procedures to investigate
allegations of impropriety leveled against an Air Force member when the situation is specific only to the Air Force.
A trained Air Force IG will normally augment the JTF IG staff section and should be the one who conducts the
investigation.
9–3. The transition from the Army to the Joint environment
The moment an Army IG staff section becomes a JTF IG staff section, the command IG must—
a. Organize the inspector general staff section to support a Joint command. The IG must consider the nature and
scope of the IG support required to serve the JTF both in the area of operations and at home station. The Joint Manning
Document will dictate the size of the forward-deployed IG section, so the command IG must tailor that section care-
fully to ensure the section can cover all the required Joint IG functions in the theater of operations, such as inspections,
intelligence oversight, assistance, and investigations. The IG must consider the JTF’s task organization when request-
ing IG augmentation from the National Guard and other Services as well as the training and qualification requirements
for Joint IGs. The JTF IG staff section must represent the mix of Services that comprise the JTF. If the JTF contains
Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps personnel, then the IG staff section should request at least one trained IG
from each of these services to serve in the JTF IG staff section. These trained IGs from the other Services will be
subject-matter experts for their respective Services and may have to employ their Services’ IG systems in certain
instances depending on the situation. Joint IG policy and doctrine may not cover every eventuality. If the JTF includes
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 75
allied forces, the command IG should request IG representation from those allied commands that have IGs. Lastly,
the command IG must consider the size and capabilities of the IG section that remains at home station to
support nondeployed units; other mobilizing and deploying units; and Family members. This rear detachment IG
section must be capable of supporting the rear detachment commander while offering the forward-deployed IG staff
section a reach-back capability for addressing and resolving Army-specific issues and problems that the deployed JTF
IG section cannot resolve in the theater of operations. Multi-Service IG technical channels will prove critical in
this regard.
b. Address immediate transition considerations. The newly designated JTF IG staff section must immediately
consider four things when making the transition from an Army-pure IG staff section to a Joint IG staff section—
(1) Army Regulation 20 – 1 does not necessarily apply in the Joint environment. The IG staff section must now use
established Joint IG policy and doctrine. Army Regulation 20 – 1 will still apply to Army-only situations and issues as
necessary, but the ASCC will likely handle most of those matters within the Army IG system. Even though the IG
staff section will still retain access to the Army IGARS database, most of the casework will fall under Joint
auspices and must be entered into the Joint IG database established by DODIG or by the combatant command. The
JTF IG staff section may continue to consult DAIG directly for guidance and support.
(2) AR 1 – 201 does not apply to all Services in the Joint environment. The JTF IG will assist the commander in
adapting the OIP to the JTF. The units from other Services will continue to adhere to their respective inspection
programs, so the IG must recommend to the JTF commander how best to integrate those varying inspections into a
Joint inspections program that will ensure continual readiness assessments within the JTF while the task force is
mobilizing, deploying, and executing the assigned contingency operation.
(3) The command lines have changed. The IG must define the new command lines established by the assignment
of the JTF. The JTF will now report to the commander of the combatant command who established the JTF; in turn,
the JTF IG staff section must remain responsive to the combatant command IG staff section and interact with that staff
section based upon Joint IG policy and doctrine or established combatant command policies. The JTF IG staff section
will remain responsive to the combatant command IG and comply with the provisions of Joint IG policy and doctrine
as appropriate. If Joint IG policy and doctrine have been withdrawn or are not in effect, then the JTF IG will adhere
to the IG guidelines established by the combatant command IG staff section. The JTF IG must identify routine reports
and information requirements that feed into reports required by the commander of the combatant command from the
combatant command IG. The JTF, while reporting directly to the combatant command commander, may also continue
to maintain a relationship with the JTF’s previous Army headquarters, which may be a corps headquarters or an
ACOM. The same principle applies to the JTF IG staff section and the IG staff section of the previous Army
headquarters.
(4) The Joint task force inspector general must establish connectivity. Connectivity is essential to creating Joint IG
technical channels within and outside of the JTF. The JTF IG must actively establish communications by any necessary
means with the subordinate JTF IG staff sections and the combatant command IG staff section to ensure smooth
communications and the rapid transmittal of issues and allegations.
Chapter 10
Information Management
10–1. Inspector General Network
a. Definition. The IGNET is an information system network that supports IG case data collection, data analysis,
communications, and administrative requirements of IGs worldwide. The IGARS database is a component of IGNET.
The network consists of individual local area networks located at IG staff sections interconnected across the DOD
wide area network (WAN) infrastructure connected to USAIGA or one of two regional server farms.
b. Access. Only school-trained Army IGs are authorized to have access to IGNET and the IGARS database. The
only exceptions are office and administrative support staff (graduation from TIGS is not required) (see para 2–2g,
above) and approved, school-trained ANG IGs serving in multi-Service headquarters (see para 1–4d(20), above).
School-trained Army IGs serving in non-Army IG staff sections (such as a combatant command IG staff section)
may receive access to IGNET upon request but not the IGARS database.
c. Database permissions for higher echelon inspector general staff sections.
(1) Higher echelon IG staff sections may identify key individuals by name that may have level 5 permission to view
a lower echelon IG staff section’s case data in the IGARS database for trends analysis purposes. The higher echelon
IG staff section may only see basic case data in a read-only status for open and closed cases and not the
detailed information contained in each case. Basic case data includes the case number, date opened or closed, status,
case label name, the complainant’s name, problem area, function code, and names of subjects or suspects.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 76
Higher echelon command IGs may request this access on a case-by-case basis by contacting DAIG’s Assistance
Division (SAIG – AC) with sufficient justification.
(2) A higher echelon IG staff section that is granted visibility over a lower echelon IG staff section’s case
information may not release that information outside of IG channels or interfere with the subordinate IG.
This restriction is in effect unless both IG staff sections are involved in resolving the IGAR (serving as the OOR and/or
office of inquiry) and includes the higher echelon IG’s directing authority.
(3) Disagreement by the higher echelon IG staff section with how the lower echelon IG staff section is resolving an
IGAR does not give that higher echelon IG staff section permission to release that information to the higher IG’s
directing authority. However, if the lower echelon commander’s or IG’s actions violate a standard, the higher echelon
IG will take action to resolve that allegation and may inform the higher echelon IG’s directing authority.
(4) Command IGs and deputy command IGs for Army commands will have read-only access to the full details of
all ACOM cases and may submit access requests for additional personnel in the ACOM IG staff section on a case-by-
case basis to DAIG’s Assistance Division (SAIG– AC) for approval. Although ACOM IG offices already have level
6 access, other IG offices may request from Assistance Division level 6 access for selected personnel. Full details
include the basic case data with case notes and synopses as applicable. This level 6 access is intended to allow appro-
priate situational awareness to the higher level IG only. All ACOM IGs are prohibited from interfering with subordi-
nate cases unless specifically requested by the subordinate IG or directed by the ACOM directing authority.
10–2. Purpose
The purpose of the IGNET is to provide an automated information system network infrastructure to support
IGs worldwide to—
a. Enable the collection, consolidation, and electronic interchange of IG case data at local sites, ACOMs, ASCCs,
DRUs, and DAIG using IGARS.
b. Facilitate communications between IGs and other agencies via shared network drives or information posted
on the Intranet. In selected instances, use video teleconferencing and application-sharing with document collabora-
tion.
c. Provide baseline office automation, administrative software, and training software support through commercial
off-the-shelf (COTS) and Government-developed software.
10–3. Inspector General Network operations and responsibilities
a. Information Resource Management Division.
(1) Program management. The chief of DAIG’s Information Resource Management Division (IRMD) is the PM
for IGNET, responsible for the operation, maintenance, management, and security of the IGNET. The IGNET PM’s
responsibilities include preparing and submitting program budget data to the program objective memorandum process
to ensure that the program is adequately funded. The IGNET PM maintains an IGNET architecture plan and manages
configuration control of the network. The PM also ensures IGNET compliance with Army automation policy and the
Army Enterprise Architecture.
(2) Network operations and administration. The IRMD personnel provide centralized IGNET operations and man-
agement internal to the DAIG and in support of command and State IG sites. The DAIG IGNET network administrator
will coordinate with the local Network Enterprise Center responsible for providing network connectivity from IGNET
servers to local IG sites. The IGNET enterprise center staff will configure and install all IGNET hardware and
software.
(3) Database management. The IGNET database administrator is responsible for the administration, maintenance,
and management of all centralized IG databases.
(4) Help desk. The DAIG’s IRMD will maintain a technical help desk to support IGNET customers worldwide. The
help desk will be manned during normal duty hours Monday through Friday (0730 –1730 EST).
(5) Software maintenance.
(a) The network support software. The IGNET PM is responsible for the maintenance and modernization of IG-
developed software consistent with the IGNET architecture plan. All problem reports and system change requests will
be submitted to the IGNET PM.
(b) Inspector General network-provided, commercial off-the-shelf software. The IGNET PM will modernize
or upgrade IGNET-provided COTS software as required to maintain IGNET’s configuration, certification, and
architecture.
(c) Local unique software or locally provided commercial off-the-shelf software. The IGNET PM may approve the
installation and use of locally provided software on IGNET servers and IGNET workstations. The IGNET PM will
not approve any software for use on the IGNET system unless it passes the IGNET PM’s evaluation testing for
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 77
compatibility. The IGNET PM will not authorize the installation of COTS software unless it is in license
compliance.
(d) Hardware maintenance. Any IGNET-provided hardware covered under warranty will be serviced in accordance
with warranty provisions. Any IGNET-provided hardware that is out of warranty and has a remaining life cycle will
be repaired or replaced at the discretion of the IGNET PM based on technical and life cycle cost consider-
ations.
(e) Information system security. The IGNET PM has overall responsibility for security of the IGNET. The IGNET
information system security officer is responsible for ensuring that security procedures and protocols governing net-
work operations are developed and issued; establishing procedures to control access and connectivity to the
network; preparing and distributing instructions, guidance, and standard operating procedures concerning network
security; reviewing threats and vulnerabilities related to the network; reporting to the information systems security
officer any suspicion of attempted or actual unauthorized entry to the network; evaluating planned changes to the
network in terms of security; and assisting with the preparation of certification documents for IGNET operations
within DAIG.
(f) Network connectivity. The IGNET PM is the approval authority for IGNET site connectivity configurations. The
IGNET PM will maintain configuration control and security consistent with the IGNET architecture plan. Because
the local Network Enterprise Center has the responsibility for installation, maintenance, and operation of the post
network infrastructure, the IGNET PM will ensure that IG network connectivity configuration and installation is al-
ways coordinated with the enterprise centers, which host regional IGNET systems.
(g) Classified networks. A classified IGNET system does not exist. IGs must process any classified IG information
on the approved classified networks and send all classified IG data to DAIG’s Intelligence Oversight Division
(SAIG–IO) for storage. The Army’s primary classified networks for sending, receiving, and researching classified
information via email and the World Wide Web are the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet) and the
Joint WorldWide Intelligence Communications System. IGs must post classified IG information on the appropriate
network based on the security requirements of the documentation.
b. Command and State inspector general staff sections.
(1) Information management officer. Each command and State IG staff section should appoint an information man-
agement officer as the primary coordinator on all information technology or information management matters. The
information management officer will perform the duties outlined in DA Pam 25 –1 – 1. As part of the information
management officer’s (IMO’s) routine duties, the IMO will—
(a) Ensure that all users meet the requirements for clearances, authorizations, need-to-know requirements,
and security responsibilities before submitting the IGNET User Request Forms (available from DAIG’s IRMD) to the
IGNET information assurance manager (IAM) or information assurance program manager (IAPM). Since
IGNET contains sensitive information, all users must have at least a completed or initiated national agency
check (NAC).
(b) Disseminate and ensure the implementation of Army, Network Enterprise Center, and DAIG cybersecurity pol-
icy and guidance.
(c) Ensure that all users have received training on IGNET and annual IA awareness training. Training on IGNET is
part of the curriculum at TIGS, but those individuals who have not attended the school will receive training from
their IMO.
(d) Report security violations and incidents to the installation IAM or IAPM. If the violation or incident involves
IGNET, report the event to the IGNET IAM or IAPM as well.
(2) Intranet services. Inspectors general may establish an Intranet homepage on the IRMD-maintained Intranet
server to share information with other IGs (contact DAIG’s IRMD for further guidance). IGs can also establish a
separate homepage on a command- or Network Enterprise Center-maintained World Wide Web server to provide
common-use, unrestricted information. Command and State IGs will not implement a separate World Wide Web
server on any IGNET server or user workstation.
c. Network Enterprise Center.
(1) The Network Enterprise Center chief is responsible for providing and supporting the installation-wide network
infrastructure to which IGNET connects. This infrastructure includes the physical network cable wiring. The center is
not responsible to provide any IGNET-specific equipment. For the purpose of this chapter, the term Network Enter-
prise Center is used inclusively for the functionally responsible office that provides Network Enterprise Center-like
services and management. For example, not all installations or agencies have Network Enterprise Centers but instead
may have an installation management directorate, an information systems directorate, and so forth.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 78
(2) The Network Enterprise Center chief must coordinate with the IGNET PM whenever the center makes changes
to the installation network infrastructure, operating system, or hardware that affect the connectivity or functionality
of IGNET systems.
10–4. Security
a. The protection of sensitive IG data processed on the IGNET is essential to the integrity of the IG system. The
security of IGNET includes physical security of automatic data processing equipment, data security, and information
security. The IGNET architecture is designed conceptually to use common communications channels whenever
possible. The WAN connectivity across installation networks requires that specific IGNET hardware and software
implementation is coordinated with the local supporting Network Enterprise Center to ensure the protection of IG data
while allowing the complete functioning of the IGNET WAN.
b. Physical security is mainly concerned with ensuring that—
(1) Servers and computers that process or store IG data are physically secured by the local Network Enterprise
Center with a support agreement in place or in an access-controlled room, space, or equipment closets.
(2) Access to IG software, hardware, data, and information is limited to IGs, personnel supervised by IGs, and
members of the local Network Enterprise Center. This limited access does not preclude admitting personnel who have
signed a nondisclosure statement to perform hardware or software support maintenance or warranty work.
(3) The IGNET PM may also coordinate the installation of additional security measures such as firewall
software and encryption hardware or software as necessary to meet specific site or IGNET requirements. The IGNET
PM retains exclusive configuration control of IGNET-provided routers or other IGNET security devices. Implemen-
tation of the router or any other security enhancement will be coordinated with the Network Enterprise Center to
ensure compatibility with local network infrastructure. Local Network Enterprise Centers may introduce additional
security systems to protect installation network infrastructure but must not block IGNET connectivity. The IGNET
PM and the local Network Enterprise Center will coordinate feasible configurations and technical implementations to
avoid compromising IGNET functionality or security.
c. Data and information security considerations include the following:
(1) AR 380– 5 and AR 25– 2 are the governing regulations for security (contact DAIG’s IRMD for additional IGNET
operational security guidance).
(2) Only IG staff sections will have access to the IGNET system. Only designated IGs in these staff sections will
have access to automated IG records or data.
(3) The IGNET is a certified FOUO information system that processes sensitive information.
(4) Classified data will not be entered into IGNET. A classified IGNET system does not exist; instead, IGs can
process classified data on approved classified systems (see para 10–3a(5)(g), above).
(5) IGs will ensure that IG data stored in mobile systems like laptops are afforded the same confidentiality and
protection as other IG records. This sensitive data must be encrypted on the local system.
(6) IGs will handle all media containing IG data in accordance with AR 380 –5 and AR 25– 2 whenever these media
are replaced, repaired, or disposed.
10–5. Enhancements
IGs will request specific hardware and software requirements to meet their specific IG mission from the IGNET PM.
Based upon funding, the IGNET PM might provide the requested hardware or software. All IGs are encouraged to
provide comments to the IGNET PM concerning improvements to IGNET and its applications. IGs must coordinate
with the local Network Enterprise Center for life cycle information technology equipment upgrades and replacements.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 79
Appendix A
References
Section I
Required Publications
AR 1–201
Army Inspection Policy (Cited in para 1–4a(8)(b).)
AR 381–10
U.S. Army Intelligence Activities (Cited in para 1–4a(8)(h).)
AR 614–100
Officer Assignment Policies, Details and Transfers (Cited in para 2–1d.)
The Assistance and Investigations Guide
The Assistance and Investigations Guide (Cited in para 1–4b(5)(g).) (Available from The U.S. Army Inspector General
School at https://tigs-online.ignet.army.mil/.)
The Inspections Guide
The Inspections Guide (Cited in para 3–4c.) (Available from The U.S. Army Inspector General School at https://tigs-
online.ignet.army.mil/.)
The Inspector General Reference Guide
Inspector General Reference Guide (Cited in para 8–5a.) (Available from The U.S. Army Inspector General School
at https://tigs-online.ignet.army.mil/.)
The Intelligence Oversight Guide
Intelligence Oversight Guide (Cited in para 5–3a.) (Available from The U.S. Army Inspector General School at
https://tigs-online.ignet.army.mil/.)
The Teaching and Training Guide
The Teaching and Training Guide (Cited in para 4–1a.) (Available from The U.S. Army Inspector General School at
https://tigs-online.ignet.army.mil/.)
Section II
Related Publications
A related publication is a source of additional information. The user does not have to read a related publication to
understand this regulation.
ADP 3–0
Operations
ADP 7–0
Training Units and Developing Leaders
ADRP 7–0
Training Units and Developing Leaders
AR 1–20
Legislative Liaison
AR 5–22
The Army Force Modernization Proponent System
AR 10–87
Army Commands, Army Service Component Commands, Direct Reporting Units
AR 11–2
Managers’ Internal Control Program
AR 11–7
Internal Review Program
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 80
AR 15–6
Procedures for Administrative Investigations and Boards of Officers
AR 15–180
Army Discharge Review Board
AR 15–185
Army Board for Correction of Military Records
AR 25–1
Army Information Technology
AR 25–2
Information Assurance
AR 25–30
Army Publishing Program
AR 25–50
Preparing and Managing Correspondence
AR 25–55
The Department of the Army Freedom of Information Act Program
AR 25–400–2
The Army Records Information Management System (ARIMS)
AR 27–1
Judge Advocate Legal Services
AR 27–10
Military Justice
AR 27–20
Claims
AR 27–26
Legal Services: Rules of Professional Conduct for Lawyers
AR 27–40
Litigation
AR 36–2
Audit Services in the Department of the Army
AR 40–66
Medical Record Administration and Healthcare Documentation
AR 40–68
Clinical Quality Management
AR 40–501
Standards of Medical Fitness
AR 50–5
Nuclear Surety
AR 50–6
Nuclear and Chemical Weapons and Materiel Chemical Surety
AR 50–7
Army Reactor Program
AR 71–32
Force Development and Documentation
AR 140–10
Assignments, Attachments, Details, and Transfers
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 81
AR 215–3
Nonappropriated Funds Instrumentalities Personnel Policy
AR 220–5
Designation, Classification, and Change in Status of Units
AR 350–1
Army Training and Leader Development
AR 380–5
Department of the Army Information Security Program
AR 380–67
Personnel Security Program
AR 380–381
Special Access Programs (SAPs) and Sensitive Activities
AR 385–10
The Army Safety Program
AR 600–4
Remission or Cancellation of Indebtedness
AR 600–8–2
Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions (FLAG)
AR 600–8–104
Army Military Human Resource Records Management
AR 600–8–105
Military Orders
AR 600–9
The Army Body Composition Program
AR 600–20
Army Command Policy
AR 600–37
Unfavorable Information
AR 600–85
The Army Substance Abuse Program
AR 600–100
Army Profession and Leadership Policy
AR 601–10
Management and Recall to Active Duty of Retired Soldiers of the Army in Support of Mobilization and Peacetime
Operations
AR 601–280
Army Retention Program
AR 608–99
Family Support, Child Custody, and Paternity
AR 614–30
Overseas Service
AR 614–115
Military Intelligence Excepted Career Program (Great skill) (U)
AR 614–200
Enlisted Assignments and Utilization Management
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 82
AR 623–3
Evaluation Reporting System
AR 635–200
Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations
AR 670–1
Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia
AR 690–600
Equal Employment Opportunity Discrimination Complaints
AR 690–700
Personnel Relations and Services (General)
AR 690–950
Career Program Management
AR 690–950–4
Military Intelligence Civilian Excepted Career Program
AR 735–5
Property Accountability Policies
CJCSI 1301.01F
Joint Individual Augmentation Procedures (Available at https://www.dtic.mil/cjcs_directives/cjcs/instruc-
tions.htm)
CNGBI 0700.01
Inspector General Intelligence Oversight
CNGBI 9601.01
National Guard Discrimination Complaint Program
Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency
Quality Standards for Investigations
DA Pam 25–1–1
Army Information Technology Implementation Instructions
DA Pam 25–30
Consolidated Index of Army Publications and Blank Forms
DA Pam 25–403
Guide to Recordkeeping in the Army
DA Pam 385–61
Toxic Chemical Agent Safety Standards
DA Pam 500–5–1
Individual Augmentation Management
DA Pam 611–21
Military Occupational Classification and Structure
DOD 1400.25–M
Department of Defense Civilian Personnel Manual (CPM)
DOD 5240.1–R
Procedures Governing the Activities of DOD Intelligence Components that Affect United States Persons
DOD 5400.07
DOD Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Program
DOD 5500.07–R
Joint Ethics Regulation (JER)
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 83
DOD Guide to Investigating Military Whistleblower Reprisal and Restriction Complaints
DOD Inspector General
DODD 1401.03
DOD Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality (NAFI) Employee Whistleblower Protection
DODD 2311.01E
DOD Law of War Program
DODD 5106.01
Inspector General of the Department of Defense (IG DOD)
DODD 5106.04
Defense Inspectors General
DODD 5148.13
Intelligence Oversight
DODD 5405.2
Release of Official Information in Litigation and Testimony by DOD Personnel as Witnesses
DODD 5500.07
Standards of Conduct
DODD 5505.06
Investigations of Allegations Against Senior DOD Officials
DODD 7050.06
Military Whistleblower Protection
DODI O–5210.63
DOD Procedures for Security of Nuclear Reactors and Special Nuclear Materials (SNM)
DODI 5106.05
Combatant Command Inspectors General—Implementing Procedures
DODI 6490.04
Mental Health Evaluations of Members of the Military Services
DODI 7050.01
DOD Hotline Program
DODI 7750.06
Information Requirements for Semi-annual Report to the Congress
DODM 5200.02
Procedures for the DOD Personnel Security Program (PSP)
DODM 5240.01
Procedures Governing the Conduct of DoD Intelligence Activities
Executive Order 12333
United States intelligence activities (Available at https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/.)
FM 3–94
Theater Army, Corps, and Division Operations
FM 6–0
Commander and Staff Organization and Operations
JP 3–0
Joint Operations (Available at https://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp3_0.pdf.)
JP 3–33
Joint Task Force Headquarters (Available at https://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp3_33.pdf.)
MRE 304
Confessions and admissions
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 84
MRE 305
Warnings about rights
MRE 502
Lawyer-client privilege
MRE 503
Communications to clergy
MRE 504
Husband-wife privilege
MRE 508
Political vote
MRE 509
Deliberations of courts and juries
MRE 513
Psychotherapist—patient privilege
NGR 10–2
State Area Command, Army National Guard
NGR 600–5
The Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Program Title 32, Full time National Guard Duty (FTNGD) Management
NGR 600–21
Equal Opportunity Program in the Army National Guard
NGR 635–101
Efficiency and Physical Fitness Boards
PL 104–191
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
PL 110–181
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
PL 111–383
Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011
PPD–19
Protecting Whistleblowers with Access to Classified Information
UCMJ, Art. 15
Commanding Officer’s non-judicial punishment
UCMJ, Art. 28
Detail or employment of reporters and interpreters
UCMJ, Art. 32
Investigation
UCMJ, Art. 92
Failure to obey order or regulation
UCMJ, Art. 107
False statements
UCMJ, Art. 138
Complaint of wrongs
5 CFR 731.106
Designation of public trust positions and investigative requirements
5 CFR 2638
Office of Government Ethics and Executive Agency Ethics Program Responsibilities
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 85
29 CFR 1614
Federal Sector Equal Employment Opportunity
32 CFR 97
Release of Official Information in Litigation and Testimony by DOD Personnel as Witnesses
340 U.S. 462
United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen
384 U.S. 436
Miranda v. Arizona
5 USC
Government organization and employees
5 USC App. 5
Appendix
5 USC Chapter 77
Appeals
5 USC 552
Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings
5 USC 2301
Merit system principles
5 USC 2302
Prohibited personnel practices
5 USC 7114
Representation rights and duties
5 USC 7701
Appellate procedures
5 USC 7702
Actions involving discrimination
5 USC 7703
Judicial review of decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board
10 USC 615
Information furnished to selection boards
10 USC 1034
Protected communications; prohibition of retaliatory personnel actions
10 USC 1566
Voting assistance: compliance assessments; assistance
10 USC 1587
Employees of nonappropriated fund instrumentalities: reprisals
10 USC 2302
Definitions
10 USC 7014
Office of the Secretary of the Army
10 USC 7020
Inspector General
10 USC 7065
Assignment and detail: officers assigned or detailed to basic and special branches
10 USC 10149
Ready Reserve: continuous screening
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 86
10 USC 10216
Military technicians (dual status)
10 USC 14107
Information furnished by the Secretary concerned to promotion boards
18 USC 207
Restrictions on former officers, employees, and elected officials of the executive and legislative branches
18 USC 208
Acts affecting a personal financial interest
18 USC 2511
Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited
18 USC 2515
Prohibition of use as evidence of intercepted wire or oral communications
32 USC 105
Inspection
32 USC 315
Detail of regular members of Army and Air Force to duty with National Guard
42 USC 1973
Denial or abridgment of right to vote
44 USC 3555
Annual independent evaluation (of the information security program and practices)
52 USC 20301
Federal Responsibilities
Section III
Prescribed Forms
Unless otherwise indicated, DA Forms are available on the Army Publishing Directorate website
(https://armypubs.army.mil). DA Form 5097, DA Form 5097 – 1, and DA Form 5097 – 2 are available through The U.S.
Army Inspector General School by request only. The school’s website is at https://tigs-online.ignet.army.mil/.
DA Form 1559
Inspector General Action Request (Prescribed in para 1–13f.)
DA Form 5097
The Inspector General Oath (Prescribed in para 2–6a(1).)
DA Form 5097–1
Inspector General Oath (Non-IG) (Prescribed in para 2–6a(2).)
DA Form 5097–2
Inspector General Oath (Acting-IG) (Prescribed in para 2–6a(3).)
DA Form 7433
Privacy Act Information Release Statement (Prescribed in para 6–2c.)
Section IV
Referenced Forms
Unless otherwise indicated, DA Forms are available on the Army Publishing Directorate website
(https://armypubs.army.mil).
DA Form 11–2
Internal Control Evaluation Certification
DA Form 67–10–1
Company Grade Plate (O1 – O3; WO1 – CW2) Officer Evaluation Report
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 87
DA Form 67–10 –2
Field Grade Plate (O4 – O5; CW3 – CW5) Officer Evaluation Report
DA Form 67–10–3
Strategic Grade Plate (O6) Officer Evaluation Report
DA Form 2028
Recommended Changes to Publications and Blank Forms
DA Form 2166–9–2 (SSG–1SG/MSG)
NCO Evaluation Report
DA Form 2166–9–3 (CSM/SGM)
NCO Evaluation Report
DA Form 3881
Rights Warning Procedure/Waiver Certificate
DA Form 4187
Personnel Action
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 88
Appendix B
Inspector General Military Nomination, Civilian Hiring, and Force Management
Requirements
This appendix addresses the full range of military and Civilian IG personnel and force management policies for the
Army IG system. The office of responsibility is DAIG’s Operations and Support Division (SAIG – OP).
B–1. Nomination and selection requirements
The Inspector General (TIG), as the IG system’s personnel and functional proponent, is responsible for the
IG nomination and approval process but not assignments. Assignment processes, to include replacements and World-
wide Individual Augmentation System (WIAS) requirements, are the responsibility of the owning command and re-
spective component human resource commands. Units must work within personnel replacement channels to
requisition Soldiers to serve as IGs. The Inspector General will approve or disapprove nominees for IG duty
and establish parameters for the selection of Civilian IGs.
a. Military nominations. HRC nominates IGs, assistant IGs, or temporary assistant IGs for more than 180 days for
Regular Army assignments either as a result of the requisition process or the identification of a local nominee by the
commander. HRC nominates IGs or assistant IGs for USAR AGR assignments as a result of the requisition process.
b. Commissioned officer nomination requirements and attributes. Commissioned officers considered for IG duty
must meet the following minimum qualifications as outlined in AR 614 –100. These commissioned officers must—
(1) Be a citizen of the United States either by birth or naturalization.
(2) Be in the grade of chief warrant officer three (CW3) or above, or captain or above. A captain must
have successfully completed company-, battery-, or troop-level command (or successfully completed a key develop-
mental or branch-qualifying assignment) and be a graduate of the captain’s career course. The USAR AGR officers
are exempt from this command requirement because of limited command opportunities; however, USAR AGR offic-
ers will be nominated for USAR IG positions only if they are within 1 year of promotion to—or under consideration
for—the grade of major. If possible, field grade officers will be branch qualified before beginning an IG assignment
and, at a minimum, be military education level 4 (MEL 4) graduates; USAR and ARNG field grade officers are exempt
from this MEL 4 requirement. Commissioned warrant officers will be graduates of, or have credit for, senior warrant
officer training. All officers and warrant officers will have undergraduate degrees, and colonels will have a master’s
degree.
(3) Have broad, contemporary Army experience and background that reflects outstanding performance; demon-
strates potential for future service; and provides credibility for those Soldiers, Family members, and Civilians who
seek IG assistance.
(4) Display moral attributes and personal traits that demonstrate adherence to Army Values.
(5) Have no record of punishment under Article 15: Uniform Code of Military Justice; conviction by court-martial;
general officer letters of reprimand filed in the official military personnel file; or derogatory information contained in
IG records as screened by the USAIGA.
(6) Have no record of civil conviction except for minor offenses.
(7) Have an "A" or "B" profile serial code and a "1" under "S" factor for physical profile. Packets may be
submitted if the Soldier has a “2” for post-traumatic stress disorder due to a deployment and has medical documenta-
tion clearing him or her to perform the duties of an IG. TIG will review these situations on a case-by-case basis.
(8) Serve no consecutive details as an IG. TIG may approve consecutive details as an exception to policy with the
specific consent of the officer concerned.
(9) Present good military bearing and appearance.
(10) Meet body composition requirements as outlined in AR 600 – 9.
(11) Receive a passing score on the Army physical fitness test within the last 6 months.
(12) Possess and maintain a secret-level clearance.
(13) Remain in a deployable status for all required areas.
c. Noncommissioned officer nomination requirements and attributes. Any NCOs in the grade of promotable staff
sergeant and above may be nominated or volunteer for IG duty. In accordance with the minimum qualifications
outlined in AR 614 –200, these NCOs must—
(1) Be a citizen of the United States either by birth or naturalization.
(2) Not be on assignment instructions.
(3) Be high school graduates or have a general education degree equivalency; be a graduate of the senior leader
course; and, if a SGM, a graduate of the Sergeants Major Academy. An undergraduate degree is desirable.
(4) Have 36 months of service remaining or be eligible to extend or reenlist.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 89
(5) Display moral attributes and personal traits that demonstrate adherence to Army Values.
(6) Have no record of punishment under UCMJ, Art. 15; conviction by court-martial; general officer letters of
reprimand filed in the official military personnel file; or derogatory information contained in IG records as screened
by the USAIGA.
(7) Have no record of civil conviction except for minor offenses.
(8) Have an "A" or "B" profile serial code and a "1" under "S" factor for physical profile. Packets may be
submitted if the Soldier has a “2” for post-traumatic stress disorder due to a deployment and has medical documenta-
tion clearing him or her to perform the duties of an IG. TIG will review these situations on a case-by-case basis.
(9) Have broad, contemporary Army experience and background that reflects outstanding performance; demon-
strates potential for future service; and provides credibility for those Soldiers, Family members, and Civilians who
seek IG assistance.
(10) Serve no consecutive details as an IG. TIG may approve consecutive details as an exception to policy with
the specific consent of the NCO concerned.
(11) Present good military bearing and appearance.
(12) Meet body composition requirements as outlined in AR 600 – 9.
(13) Receive a passing score on the Army physical fitness test within the last 6 months.
(14) Possess and maintain at least a secret-level security clearance.
(15) Remain in a deployable status for all required areas.
(16) Not be serving in a military occupational specialty (MOS) immaterial position at the time of nomination to an
IG position.
B–2. Procedures for preparing and submitting nomination packets
All IG nominations begin with a requisition submitted from a unit’s personnel officer or Adjutant General
to HRC, NGB, or USAR to fill a vacant IG billet. HRC, NGB, and USAR use the same procedures to develop all
nomination packets.
a. Nomination packet requirements. The IG billet must be a recognized position authorized by a line and paragraph
number on an MTOE or TDA. Upon receipt of the unit requisition, HRC, NGB, or USAR will prepare and forward
to DAIG’s Operations and Support Division (The U.S. Army Inspector General Agency (SAIG – OP), 1700 Army
Pentagon, Room 5C560, Washington, DC 20310 – 1700) a nomination packet that includes the items listed in table
B– 1. MTOE or TDA IG positions will not be filled with non-IG Soldiers for the purpose of using the slot as a place-
holder. Soldiers placed in an IG position will have an IG nomination packet submitted within 30 days of
assignment.
Table B–1
Inspector general nomination packet contents —Continued
-Unit identification code, MTOE, or TDA entry date; line and paragraph number for IG billet.
-An official DA photograph that is no more than 5 years old. If the nominee was promoted less than 6 months before the nomination
for IG duty, the DA photograph at the nominee’s previous grade is acceptable. If promoted more than 6 months prior to the nomina-
tion, a photograph at the new grade is required.
-Copies of officer evaluation reports (DA Form 67 –10–1 (Company Grade Plate (O1 –O3; WO1–CW2) Officer Evaluation Report); DA
Form 67–10–2 (Field Grade Plate (O4 –O5; CW3–CW5) Officer Evaluation Report); or DA Form 67 –10–3 (Strategic Grade Plate
(O6) Officer Evaluation Report)) or NCO evaluation reports (DA Form 2166 –9–2 (SSG –1SG/MSG) (NCO Evaluation Report) or DA
Form 2166–9–3 (CSM/SGM) (NCO Evaluation Report)) for the last 5 years. (This requirement is for all officer evaluation reports
(OERs)/noncommissioned officer evaluation reports (NCOERs) from the last 5 years, not the last 5 OERs/NCOERs.)
-A memorandum signed by the commander/directing authority if the nomination is local.
-Copy of any physical profile.
-Soldier record brief.
b. Nomination routing procedures for Regular Army Soldiers.
(1) HRC nominates Regular Army officers and NCOs to fill IG and assistant IG positions. Nomination packets will
be prepared in accordance with table B– 1 and submitted to DAIG’s Operations and Support Division for TIG consid-
eration and approval or disapproval.
(2) Once nominated, the Soldier’s assignment status will be frozen until TIG determines the Soldier’s suitability to
serve as an IG. Once TIG makes a decision, DAIG’s Operations and Support Division will notify HRC via telephone
and memorandum officially accepting or rejecting the candidate.
(3) HRC will issue orders for attendance at the IG school and follow-on assignment instructions.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 90
(4) Soldiers disapproved for IG duty will be denied without prejudice.
c. Nomination routing procedures for U.S. Army Reserve Soldiers. HRC nominates USAR AGR officers and NCOs
as IGs or assistant IGs as a result of the following requisition process:
(1) The IG, USARC, will review and make recommendations to TIG on all nomination packets for AGR USAR
commissioned officers and NCOs prior to submission for TIG approval. The IG, USARC, may return a nomination
packet to HRC or a command IG without action and without prejudice.
(2) Nomination packets for individual mobilization augmentee Soldiers will be forwarded through IG, USARC, for
review and recommendation prior to submission to TIG for approval.
(3) Nomination packets for IRR Soldiers will be forwarded through IG, USARC, for review and recommendation
prior to submission for approval.
(4) RC military technicians will not be approved for USAR TPU M-day IG positions unless the position is a dual-
status technician and TPU or M-day IG position. The military technician must be assigned full time in an IG position
and drill or conduct battle assemblies in an IG position. Otherwise, a conflict of interest would arise in holding two
separate military positions—one full time and another in TPU or M-day status. Military technicians must be nomi-
nated, approved, and trained in accordance with this regulation (see para 2–2c).
d. Nomination routing procedures for Army National Guard Soldiers.
(1) Nomination packets for Regular Army commissioned officers to serve as an IG in a State, territory, Common-
wealth of Puerto Rico, or the District of Columbia will originate with HRC. The CNGB must review the nominations
with an endorsement by the State AG prior to TIG approval. TIG must be notified of Army Civilians who also serve
as TPU Soldiers assigned to the command and who are considered for IG positions because of the inherent conflict of
interest that might arise in holding both positions within the same command.
(2) The NGB will review all nomination packets for ARNGUS personnel prior to submission for TIG approval.
(3) RC military technicians will not be approved for ARNGUS M-day IG positions unless the position is a
dual-status technician and TPU or M-day IG position. The military technician must be assigned full time in an IG
position and drill or conduct battle assemblies in an IG position. Otherwise, a conflict of interest would arise in holding
two separate military positions—one full time and another in TPU or M-day status. Military technicians must be
nominated, approved, and trained in accordance with this regulation (see para 2–2d).
e. Local nomination submissions. For locally nominated IGs, the commander or directing authority will submit the
items in table B– 1 and forward them through personnel channels to HRC, NGB, or USAR. For WOs of all compo-
nents, the directing authority’s command chief warrant officer will review the nomination and provide feedback to the
directing authority on the WO’s suitability for IG duty. Likewise, for NCOs of all components, the directing author-
ity’s CSM, sergeant major, or senior enlisted Soldier will review the nomination and provide feedback to the directing
authority on the NCO’s suitability for IG duty. Respective component human resource commands will review the final
packet for correctness and determine if they can or cannot support the nomination given ongoing operational require-
ments. If supportable, HRC, NGB, or USARC will forward the local nomination packet to DAIG’s Operations and
Support Division, which in turn will forward it to TIG for approval or disapproval. When TIG acts on the
nomination, DAIG’s Operations and Support Division will notify HRC, NGB, or USAR and the gaining
command and will authorize direct coordination with TIGS for a school allocation.
f. Local nomination memorandum preparation. The cover memorandum will be prepared in accordance with AR
25 – 50 and contain the following information:
(1) Name, grade, DOD identification number, MOS, or specialty code and branch of nominee.
(2) Unit and position for which nominated, TDA paragraph and line number, or temporary position and length of
temporary duty assignment.
(3) Identification of incumbent, if any.
(4) A justification as to why the local nominee is suited to serve as an IG. The justification should address why the
nominee is best suited to serve as an IG. Comment on the officer’s or NCO’s leadership abilities (for example, influ-
ence and presence, sets the example, technical and tactical ability, knowledge of Army IG doctrine and policies, and
so forth), communication skills (written and oral abilities), and attributes in accordance with paragraph B–1b and c.
(5) Point of contact.
(6) The commander’s/directing authority’s signature.
g. Local nomination routing procedures. Local personnel officers will forward local nominations through one of
the following addresses to DAIG’s Operations and Support Division (The U.S. Army Inspector General Agency
(SAIG–OP), 1700 Army Pentagon, Room 5C560, Washington, DC 20310 – 1700):
(1) For the Senior Leader Development Office, colonel or lieutenant colonel(P) send to—Office of the Chief of
Staff, Army, Colonels Management Office, 200 Army Pentagon, Room 2A476, Washington, DC 20310.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 91
(2) For the SGM Branch—CSM, SGM, or MSG(P), send to—U.S. Army Human Resources Command
(AHRC– EPS), 1600 Spearhead Division Avenue, Fort Knox, KY 40122.
(3) For Regular Army CPT through lieutenant colonel, send to—Commander, U.S. Army Human Resources Com-
mand (AHRC– OPZ– X), 1600 Spearhead Division Ave, Fort Knox, KY 40122.
(4) For all Regular Army enlisted—SSG (P), SFC, or MSG, send to—Commander, U.S. Army Human Resources
Command (KNOX – HRC– EPD – I), 1600 Spearhead Division, Dept. 300, Fort Knox, KY 40122 – 5300.
(5) For all Regular Army medical personnel, send to—Commander, U.S. Army Human Resources Command
(AHRC– OPH– M), 1600 Spearhead Division, Fort Knox, KY 40122 – 5300.
(6) For all ARNG, send to—Chief, National Guard Bureau (NGB – IG), Suite1D163, 1636 Defense Pentagon,
Washington, DC 20301 – 1336.
(7) For all Army Reserve, except USASOC, send to—Commander, USARC (AFRC– IG), 4710 Knox Street, Fort
Bragg, NC 28310 –5010.
h. Temporary assistant inspector general nominations. TIG will approve the nominations of all officers, WOs, and
NCOs selected as temporary assistant IGs who are anticipated to serve in that capacity for more than 180 days. The
commander or directing authority will submit a memorandum prepared in accordance with AR 25 – 50 and in accord-
ance with paragraph B– 2 and table B– 1, above. TIG will also approve all Army Civilian employees and selected non-
Army Civilians whose duty as temporary assistant IGs exceeds 180 days. For Civilian IGs, include the last 10
Civilian ratings, any awards given over the past 10 years, and certify via the command’s security officer that
the temporary assistant IG submitted for TIG approval has a valid, up-to-date NAC and at least a secret level
security clearance.
i. Acting inspector general appointments. The ACOM, ASCC, or DRU commander or directing authority, or the
senior Army forces commander when the Army IG is serving under a Joint or combatant command, may appoint
commissioned officers and Army Civilians to serve as acting IGs for Regular Army and subordinate USAR units.
Commissioned officers must be in the grade of captain or above, and Army Civilians must be in the grade of GS – 11
and above. These commanders or directing authorities will not delegate their authority to approve such appointments.
The State AG approves the appointment of commissioned officers as acting IGs in the State or territory of the NG. If
a commissioned officer or Civilian in the appropriate grade is not available for nomination as an acting IG, a request
for exception to policy may be submitted to TIG through DAIG’s Operations and Support Division (The U.S. Army
Inspector General Agency (SAIG – OP), 1700 Army Pentagon, Room 5C560, Washington, DC 20310 – 1700). The
request will be prepared in accordance with AR 25 – 50 and must explain fully the need for an acting IG, why no
commissioned officer or Civilian in the appropriate grade is available, and a description of the nominee’s
qualifications.
j. Joint inspector general duty and the Worldwide Individual Augmentation System. TIG will recommend approval
for the nominations of all Army officers, WOs, and NCOs nominated or requisitioned to perform duty in a Joint or
combatant command as part of TIG’s responsibility to comment on the suitability of these individuals for Joint IG
duty. TIG will also recommend approval for the nominations of all Army officers, WOs, and NCOs nominated for
IG duty with the DODIG. These approvals will occur prior to the approval of the gaining command or
organization in accordance with paragraphs B– 1 and B– 2, above.
k. State and Commonwealth inspectors general. Per 32 USC 315, only Regular Army colonels and lieutenants colo-
nel will be nominated and approved to serve as a State or Commonwealth IG, without exception. National Guard
officers may serve in an acting capacity until an Regular Army officer is assigned. If no National Guard officer is
available, NGB will designate another IG officer to act as the State IG.
B–3. Special U.S. Army Reserve personnel programs and processes
a. Retiree mobilization program. TIG is the approving authority for retired commissioned officers (under 60 years
of age) nominated for pre-assignment orders to IG positions in accordance with AR 601 –10. HRC will identify and
nominate officers to serve as IGs in this program who have an ASI of 5N. HRC will forward the nomination packet
through the IG, USARC, for comment prior to submission to TIG via DAIG’s Operations and Support Division for
approval.
b. Cross-leveling of U.S. Army Reserve inspector general personnel during mobilization.
(1) The IG, USARC, must remain informed of all internal major subordinate command (MSC) cross-
leveling requests and actions for IGs. Requests for cross-leveling IGs between MSCs (two general officer-level com-
mands) require review by IG, USARC, and TIG notification.
(2) The command IG, with the approval of the readiness division, operational and functional command, or division
commander, is authorized to “cross-level” IGs and assistant IGs within the same command to increase IG support to
Soldiers, Families, and Civilians. This authority includes the cross-leveling of NCO IGs with a mismatched MOS and
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 92
other IGs within the same command for promotion purposes. The MSC IG staff section conducting the cross-leveling
action will notify IG, USARC, for tracking purposes; in turn, IG, USARC, will inform DAIG’s Operations
and Support Division by providing the MTOE or TDA line and paragraph number, the losing and gaining unit, and
the IGs by name that were moved. Commanders and USARC IG are prohibited from moving IGs to non-IG
billets.
c. Individual mobilization augmentee program. The gaining unit nominating an individual mobilization augmentee
Soldier for IG duty is responsible for assisting the IMA Soldier with the nomination packet. Nomination packets will
be forwarded through IG, USARC, for review and recommendation prior to submission to TIG for approval.
d. Individual Ready Reserve program. Nomination packets for IRR Soldiers will be forwarded through IG, USARC,
for review and recommendation prior to submission to TIG for approval. Both USARC and HRC will assist the IRR
Soldier in preparing the nomination packet.
e. U.S. Army Reserve 179-day tours of duty. The IG, USARC, is the approval authority for requests for all USAR
IG short tours (fewer than 180 days). HRC generates the orders for IGs in this category.
f. Requesting an Army Reserve individual augmentee or replacement for deployment. The individual augmentee
request process is as follows:
(1) The deployed unit or requesting command submits the requirement through the operations officer to ensure that
the combatant command can verify the requirements on the Joint Manning Document.
(2) The commander of the combatant command will then forward the Joint Manning Document, along with
specific reporting dates, to the operations officer for fill. The operations officer, through U.S. Army Forces Command
(FORSCOM) or the Army service component, will request the individual in accordance with established Army poli-
cies. The personnel officer or the Army service component will determine personnel availability and fill require-
ments from internal Army assets.
(3) The requirement is forwarded via the WIAS to FORSCOM and then on to USARC for fill or to HRC for Retired
Reserve, IMA, IRR, and AGR Soldiers. The USAR augmentee must be a volunteer. The organization responsible for
IA mobilization and deployment as an IG must assist that Soldier in completing the nomination packet and
forwarding it to IG, USARC.
(4) All TPU nominations are forwarded through the IG, USARC, prior to submission to TIG for approval.
(5) The IG, USARC, reviews all nominations for Retired Reserve, IMA, IRR, and AGR Soldiers prior to submission
to TIG for approval.
(6) The augmentee may backfill a deploying Soldier or join a unit (to include a Joint JTF headquarters or other
headquarters element) that will or has deployed.
(7) To replace the augmentee, the Army service component will determine if Army assets in theater can fill the
requirements. If not, the requirement is transmitted via WIAS to HRC for fill in the case of the Retired Reserve, IMA,
IRR, and AGR Soldiers. The IG nomination process remains the same.
B–4. Civilian inspector general hiring and position description requirements
In accordance with Civilian personnel rules and regulations, commanders or command IGs hire Army Civilians to
serve as IGs. Hiring officials must ensure that these employees, like their uniformed counterparts, understand the
nature of IG work. Command IGs must explain that Civilian employees who perform IG duties have access
to sensitive and confidential IG information and hold a position of public trust. To protect those who seek assistance
from the IG and to safeguard the integrity of the IG system, Civilian employees performing IG duties must display
moral attributes and personal traits that demonstrate adherence to Army Values, the Warrior Ethos, and the Army
Civilian Corps Creed.
a. Army Civilian inspector general attributes. During the hiring process, hiring officials will screen potential Civil-
ian employee candidates, to include current IGs applying for another IG position, using the below criteria. These
elements will be incorporated into hiring announcements and Civilian positions descriptions. Failure to maintain at-
tributes (1), (5), (6), and (7) will serve as grounds for revocation of IG certification, locally produced credentials, and
possibly termination from government service—
(1) Be a citizen of the United States by birth or naturalization.
(2) Be in the grade of GS – 9 or above.
(3) For Civilians in the grade range of GS – 9, the best candidates will be a graduate of the Civilian Education System
(CES) basic course and have an associate’s degree. For Civilians in the grade range of GS – 11 to GS – 12, the best
candidates will be a graduate of the CES basic and intermediate courses and have an undergraduate degree. For GS – 13
positions, the best candidates may be a graduate of CES basic, intermediate, and advanced courses or their military
equivalents and have an undergraduate degree from an accredited college or university. For GS – 15 employees, the
best candidates will be a graduate of Continuing Education for Senior Leaders. For GS–14s and GS–15s, the best
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 93
candidates will have a master’s degree from an accredited college or university. All of these educational quali-
fications are desirable but not required.
(4) Have broad, contemporary Army experience and background that reflects outstanding performance and demon-
strated potential for future service. This experience is crucial to gain and maintain credibility with Soldiers, Family
members, and Civilians when conducting IG functions. The best candidates will have had previous IG experience.
(5) Have moral attributes and personal traits that demonstrate adherence to Army Values, the Warrior Ethos, and
the Army Civilian Corps Creed.
(6) Have no record of criminal punishment except for minor offenses or derogatory information contained in IG
records as screened by the USAIGA.
(7) Possess or be able to obtain and maintain a minimum of a secret level security clearance. A minimum of an
interim secret level security clearance is required before an individual can perform any IG functions or have access to
IG records. IG positions are designated as noncritical sensitive. Positions requiring a higher clearance level must be
designated as such in accordance with DOD 5200.2 – R and validated by the Office of Personnel Management’s Posi-
tion Designation Tool.
b. Civilian suitability checks. As the functional and personnel proponent for military and Civilian IGs, TIG’s duty
is to ensure the IG system has members of unquestionable integrity and who fully represent and practice Army Values.
To eliminate any real or perceived disparity between military and Civilian IGs, all prospective Civilian IGs, to include
currently serving personnel applying for another IG position in the same or in another command, will meet the criteria
in paragraph B–4a, above, and undergo a suitability check as follows:
(1) All IG hiring officials or supervisors for Army Civilian IG positions must update their Civilian IG and office
administrative personnel vacancy notices and position descriptions to add the following language: Applicants referred
for consideration will be subject to a database check against the Army’s IGARS database to screen for substantiated
and ongoing IG investigations. An SSN and current resume is required to conduct the background investigation; ap-
plicants must supply their SSN when asked by the hiring authority. Applicants and employees must possess or be able
to obtain and maintain a minimum of a secret-level security clearance. A minimum of an interim secret security clear-
ance is required before an individual can perform any IG functions or have access to IG records. IG positions are
designated as noncritical sensitive. Positions requiring a higher clearance level must be designated as such in accord-
ance with DOD 5200.2 – R and validated by the Office of Personnel Management’s Position Designation Tool.
(2) Hiring officials will first evaluate and screen referral lists for viable candidates. Hiring officials will then send
a list (with identifying information and resumes) of no more than the top three viable candidates’ information to
DAIG’s Operations and Support Division via e-mail at usarmy.pentagon.hqda-otig.list.saig-ops-tasks@mail.mil
for an Army IG background check. Upon receipt of the request, DAIG’s Operations and Support Division has 14
working days to respond to the hiring official with IGARS screening results.
(3) Hiring officials may not make a final hiring decision without the results of the Army IGAR or senior official
database screen. All hiring officials will maintain records of these screens for the time period required in accordance
with Army Records Information Management System.
(4) The hiring official must evaluate screening results to determine each individual’s suitability to serve as an IG
or a current IG seeking another IG position. The existence of an IG record alone does not automatically render an
individual unsuitable. The hiring official must evaluate the content of the record and the individual’s entire application
file to make this decision. Specifically, hiring officials should evaluate background-check results, along with conver-
sations conducted with candidates’ past supervisors, to help determine, given the available information, whether an
individual possesses the moral attributes and personal traits that are in line with Army Values. The hiring official must
make this evaluation to the best of his or her ability and ensure that the final results are in writing and maintained in
the hiring action file.
(5) Hiring officials must forward any determination that a candidate is unsuitable for service as an IG based on the
IG screens to the servicing CPOC. The CPOCs will retain final suitability adjudication authority with certain
exceptions. The release of IG records to CPOCs for this purpose is authorized. Hiring officials should then follow
servicing CPOC guidance regarding the hiring action and report all final hiring results to DAIG’s Operations and
Support Division.
(6) Criminal activity, to include illicit drug use, will automatically disqualify a candidate. Additionally, TIG will
remove from IG duty any serving Civilian IG who engages in criminal activity (including drug use) and immediately
revoke the individual’s access to IGARS and IGNET.
c. Reserve Component Civilian inspectors general. The IG, USARC, will be the selecting official for all new Army
Reserve Army Civilian IG positions and is responsible for providing servicing CPACs with position descriptions and
criteria for applicants.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 94
d. Additional position description requirements. In addition to the requirements previously stated in paragraph B–
4a, all DAC IG 1801 billets and all other authorized job series where the incumbent will serve as a certified IG will
include the following criteria on all position descriptions:
(1) Title: In accordance with table B– 2.
(2) Job series: Reflected as GS – 1801. Only TIG can grant an exception to the 1801 job series requirement. This
requirement does not cover IG administrative personnel, who can serve in an administrative job series.
(3) CP and/or functional code: Army Civilian IGs are currently under CP 55; and, as such, all IG 1801 position
descriptions will be coded CP 55.
(4) Bus code: 8888. Inspectors general will not be part of a collective bargaining group.
(5) Drug test required: Yes, but only for positions requiring a top secret clearance or higher. This test is first required
as part of the hiring process.
(6) General text for position descriptions—
(a) For IGs at the GS – 11 level and above: Position descriptions will clearly state that the individual is required to
lead inspections, to conduct assistance, to lead investigative inquiries and investigations, and to teach and train Army
standards.
(b) For assistant IGs at the GS – 9 level: Position descriptions will clearly state that the individual may lead inspec-
tions, conduct assistance, assist with investigative inquiries and investigations, and teach and train Army standards.
(c) Positions descriptions must clearly state the required clearance level. The majority will reflect secret access.
(7) Physical demands: The work is primarily sedentary; however, the employee must be willing to perform IG
functions in environments to support the mission and hiring authorities must state these requirements in the position
description and job announcement. If the billet requires the employee to deploy to a combat theater of operations, the
employee must be able to carry the necessary equipment while deployed to accomplish the mission. This requirement,
as well as any requirements to travel, must also be stated clearly in the position description and job announcement.
(8) Work environment: The work can be performed in a typical office setting, in a combat zone, or in
other environments necessary to support the mission.
(9) Conditions of employment: Incumbents must maintain a current security clearance at the secret level or higher
(depending upon the duty position’s security requirements); successfully graduate from TIGS’s basic course and any
other required IG qualification training venues; and practice IG attributes as mandatory requirements for continued
employment as an Army IG. Any serious criminal activity, to include drug use, will result in the immediate removal
of an employee from IG duty and loss of access to IGARS and IGNET.
e. Reporting requirements. Command IGs will report the names and grades of newly hired Civilian IGs to TIG
(SAIG–TR and SAIG – OP) so that the Inspector General Personnel System database can be updated and selection
verified for attendance at TIGS. The reporting format is in accordance with paragraph B–6d, below.
B–5. Security clearance requirements
All personnel nominated for IG duty must possess or be able to obtain a valid security clearance at the secret level or
higher (as required by the position) and must obtain that clearance before conducting any IG duties (interim clearances
are acceptable). Persons nominated for IG positions requiring a top secret or higher clearance must obtain and maintain
a top secret security clearance and will undergo a single scope background investigation. This requirement further
constitutes agreement to undergo random counterintelligence scope polygraph examinations. Maintaining a valid se-
curity clearance is required for continued service or employment as an Army IG.
B–6. Inspector general force management
As the functional proponent of the Army IG system, TIG is responsible to maintain the viability of the system. To
provide visibility to DAIG on Army IG force structure and to help command IGs manage their MTOEs and TDAs,
specific force management procedures and reporting requirements must be followed.
a. The inspector general system’s standard requirements formulas.
(1) Manpower requirements criteria (MARC) will determine the IG’s TOE or MTOE. The MARC is a formula used
by force developers to establish manpower position requirements for force sustainment or operational support TOEs.
The MARC formula is based on the concept of providing minimum essential force sustainment or operational support
manpower position requirements to perform specific wartime functions in sustained combat. The Operations and Sup-
port Division represents TIG as the proponent at Army-level TOE conferences. The TOE or MTOE is standardized;
however, any commander, directing authority, or command IG who seeks to change his or her MTOE must contact
DAIG’s Operations and Support Division before the submission of command-plan changes. Army force managers
will send all proposed changes to IG MTOEs to DAIG’s Operations and Support Division for review and
concurrence.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 95
(2) The commander or directing authority owns the IG TDA. However, as the IG proponent, DAIG has developed
a TDA manpower modeling tool designed to determine TDA force structure using workload criteria. Com-
manders, directing authorities, and command IGs will first contact DAIG’s Operations and Support Division for in-
struction and support on using the modeling tool. The Army force management community will only accept TDA
changes based on this modeling tool.
(3) All IG MTOEs, TDAs, and position descriptions will follow the naming protocol outlined in table B– 2, below.
Table B–2
Standard inspector general titles — Continued
Standard title Notes
Command inspector general Only one command IG can be present for each directing authority. In Civil-
ian-heavy organizations, command IGs may be Army Civilians in the grade
of GS – 14 or GS – 15.
State inspector general (XX State IG) ARNG State command IGs only where XX = two-letter State abbreviation.
Only a Regular Army commissioned officer in the grade of colonel or lieu-
tenant colonel can serve as a State IG.
Inspector general Commissioned officers (CW3, CPT and above) and Army Civilians ( GS – 11
and above). The duty title for MTOE, TDA, and ratings will be Inspector
General. For ratings, however, the duty descriptions may sub-divide respon-
sibilities, such as Deputy Command IG, Assistance and Investigations
Branch Chief, and so forth.
Assistant IG NCOs (SFC – SGM) or GS – 9. The duty title for MTOE, TDA, and ratings will
be Assistant IG. For ratings, however, specific duties may be stipulated,
such as conducts assistance, member of an inspection team, and so forth.
IG administrative support All IG administrative support personnel (specialist to SSG; GS 5 to 7).
b. Inspector general standards of grade. The rank of the command IG and the IG NCO will be determined in ac-
cordance with DA Pam 611 – 21.
c. Modification table of organization and equipment, and table of distribution and allowance codes. In the remarks
code blocks on all MTOEs and TDAs, officer and WO positions will reflect an “ASI 5N,” the NCOs will reflect an
“SQI B,” and Civilian IGs will reflect remarks code “DK.”
d. Reporting requirements. Command IGs will render an MTOE or TDA Force Management Report (FMR) to
DAIG’s Operations and Support Division annually (by 1 October). The FMR is a tool to assist command IGs in
managing IG staff sections while allowing TIG to maintain visibility on both force management and manning across
the IG system. The FMR will be submitted with the following information:
(1) The unit identification code, unit name, and entry date on MTOE or TDA.
(2) Paragraph and line numbers of the IG staff section.
(3) Titles for each line.
(4) Required/authorized/actual grades for each line.
(5) The MOS or job series for each line.
(6) Branch.
(7) Required/authorized/on-board strength for each line and authorized strength for each line.
(8) Incumbent names and how long each person has been in a position.
(9) TIGS’s basic course graduation date and advanced course training date(s).
(10) Projected permanent change of station/departure date.
(11) Remarks: Primary or alternate point of contact; date of curtailment request or approval; date of fourth- or fifth-
year request or approval; USAR/ARNG projected TIGS attendance date; and any other information deemed important
by the command IG.
(12) The IG office mailing address and the command IG’s direct telephone number.
(13) Other IG positions that may be listed on integrated manning documents, and so forth.
(14) Unit point of contact responsible for maintenance of the MTOE or TDA (usually found in the operations or
budget staff sections—include name, unit address, and direct telephone number).
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 96
(15) Risk assessment: Assess risk in terms of personnel, IG functions, and funding. Include any specific issues,
areas of mitigation, or assistance needed from higher level IG organizations.
(16) Command IG comments: Address any other issues pertinent to TIG. The command IG may brief these and the
risk assessment comments to the commander/directing authority prior to submission. DAIG provides a standard format
to ACOM/ASCC/DRU/NGB/USARC IGs for subsequent transmittal for completion to all IG staff sections via IG
technical channels. These commands will also consolidate the data into one report and submit the completed assess-
ments to DAIG’s Operations and Support Division (SAIG –OP).
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 97
Appendix C
Department of Defense Inspector General Semiannual Report to the Congress
C–1. Semiannual report requirements
TIG is required by 5A USC 3 and DODI 7750.06 to submit semiannual reports to the IG, DOD, summarizing the
significant activities of Army inspectors and their efforts to curb fraud, waste, and mismanagement.
C–2. Semiannual report submission time lines
TIG must submit these semiannual reports to IG, DOD, not later than 15 April and 15 October for the 6-month periods
ending 31 March and 30 September. TIG is responsible for consolidating the inspection information for the total
Army.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 98
Appendix D
Summary of Inspector General Reporting and Major Coordination Requirements
D–1. Key reporting and coordination requirements
Table D– 1 summarizes the reporting and major coordination requirements for IGs outlined in chapter 1 and throughout
the regulation. This table only highlights major coordination requirements and not every coordination action required
by this regulation.
Table D–1
Summary of inspector general major reporting and coordination requirements —Continued
Reporting require-
ment
Report recipient/required coordination Copy furnished/con-
current report
Time stand-
ard
Paragraph ref-
erence
Allegations against any
Army officer, WO,
NCO, or Civilian result-
ing in an IG investiga-
tion
DAIG’s Assistance Division (SAIG –AC)
(via IGARS database)
None 2 working
days
1–4b(5)(b) and
7–1k(1)
Allegations against a
colonel
DAIG’s Investigations Division (SAIG –IN) None 2 working
days
1–4b(5)(c) and
7–1k(2)
Allegations against a
promotable colonel,
general officer,
P U S M A , SES, PMs
or PEOs who are senior
officials
DAIG’s Investigations Division (SAIG –IN) None 2 working
days
1–4b(5)(d) and
7–1l(5)
Allegations against any
person assigned to a
SAP or sensitive activ-
ity
DAIG’s Intelligence Oversight Division
(SAIG –IO)
None 2 working
days
1–4b(5)(e)
Allegations against
Army IGs
Next higher echelon IG DAIG’s Assistance Divi-
sion (SAIG –AC)
2 working
days
1–4b(5)(f) and
7–1j(1)
Allegations of whistle-
blower reprisal
DAIG’s Assistance Division (SAIG –AC),
ACOM, ASCC, or DRU IG
None 5 working
days
1–4b(5)(g)
Suspected law of war
violations
Chain of command Next higher echelon IG;
DAIG’s Assistance Divi-
sion (SAIG –AC); and, if
a senior official is in-
volved, DAIG’s Investi-
gations Division
(SAIG –IN)
Immediately 1–4b(5)(h)
Records requested by
TIG
TIG (SAIG –ZA) DAIG’s Records- Re-
lease
Office (SAIG–JAR)
2 working
days
1–4b(7)(c)
Questionable intelli-
gence activities
DAIG’s Intelligence Oversight Division
(SAIG –IO)
None 5 days 1–4b(10)
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 99
Table D–1
Summary of inspector general major reporting and coordination requirements —Continued
Reporting require-
ment
Report recipient/required coordination Copy furnished/con-
current report
Time stand-
ard
Paragraph ref-
erence
MTOE or TDA reports DAIG’s Operations and Support Division
(SAIG –OP)
None 1 October 2–1e
Request for approval of
Civilians as IGs
DAIG’s Operations and Support Division
(SAIG –OP)
None As required 2–2c
Approval for temporary
assistant IGs serving
beyond 180 days
TIG (SAIG –ZA) DAIG’s Operations and
Support Division
(SAIG –OP)
As soon as
possible or no
fewer than 30
days prior to
the 180-day
mark
2–2e(3) and (4)
Request for acting IGs ACOM, ASCC, DRU, or senior Army
Forces commander
DAIG’s Operations and
Support Divisions
(SAIG –OP) (only for ex-
ceptions to the current
policy)
As required 2–2f
Request for curtailment
of IG duty
TIG (SAIG –ZA) DAIG’s Operations and
Support Division
(SAIG –OP)
As required 2–5b
Regular Army exten-
sion requests beyond 5
years
TIG (SAIG –ZA) or sent by HRC assign-
ment manager
DAIG’s Operations and
Support Division
(SAIG –OP)
As required 2–5c(1)
USAR extension re-
quests beyond 5 years
TIG (SAIG –ZA) or sent by IG, USARC DAIG’s Operations and
Support Division
(SAIG –OP)
As required 2–5c(2)
ARNG extension re-
quests beyond 5 years
TIG (SAIG –ZA) or sent by IG, NGB DAIG’s Operations and
Support Division
(SAIG –OP)
As required 2–5c(3)
Requests for consecu-
tive IG tours
TIG (SAIG –ZA) DAIG’s Operations and
Support Division
(SAIG –OP)
As required 2–5d
Exceptions for non-IG
duty
TIG (SAIG –ZA) DAIG’s Operations and
Support Division
(SAIG –OP)
As required 2-7d
FOIA requests DAIG’s Records-Release Office
(SAIG –JAR)
None 2 working
days
3-4c(4)
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 100
Table D–1
Summary of inspector general major reporting and coordination requirements —Continued
Reporting require-
ment
Report recipient/required coordination Copy furnished/con-
current report
Time stand-
ard
Paragraph ref-
erence
Receipt of a court or-
der, subpoena, or re-
quest for attendance at
a judicial or quasi-judi-
cial proceeding, or a re-
quest for an interview
that the IG reasonably
believes is related to
actual or potential litiga-
tion and the information
sought is from DA files
or is known to the IG as
a result of official duties
Local SJA DAIG’s Legal Advisor
(SAIG –JA)
3 duty days 3-9d(2)
Requests to waive or
alter IG training require-
ments
DAIG’s Training Division (SAIG –TR) None As required 4-2b(6)
Lists of all approved IG
inspection reports to
TIG and ACOM, ASCC,
or DRU IG
DAIG’s Information Resource Manage-
ment Division (email: usarmy.penta-
gon.hqda-otig.list.webmaster@mail.mil)
None 1 January, 1
April, 1 July,
and 1 October
5-2b
Requests to work
IGARs between 3 and 5
years of age
ACOM, ASCC, or DRU IG (or DAIG) None As required 6-1e
Requests to work
IGARs older than 5
years
TIG (SAIG –ZA) DAIG’s Assistance Divi-
sion (SAIG –AC)
As required 6-1e
Subjects or suspects
who fail to answer a
question or provide in-
formation
DAIG’s Assistance Division (SAIG –AC) None 2 working
days
7-1b(4)(h)
Discovery of a senior
official allegation during
an ongoing command
investigation
DAIG’s Investigations Division (SAIG –IN)
or sent by the command
None 2 working
days
7–1l(2)
Allegations of profes-
sional misconduct by
an Army lawyer
Senior counsel with jurisdiction over the
lawyer
DAIG’s legal advisor
(SAIG –JA)
As required 7–1i(4)
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 101
Table D–1
Summary of inspector general major reporting and coordination requirements —Continued
Reporting require-
ment
Report recipient/required coordination Copy furnished/con-
current report
Time stand-
ard
Paragraph ref-
erence
Allegations of misman-
agement by Judge Ad-
vocate Legal Service-
members
Executive, OTJAG DAIG’s legal advisor
(SAIG –JA)
As required 7–1i(5)
Allegations of profes-
sional misconduct by
an Army chaplain
Next higher supervisory chaplain None As required 7–1i(6)
Allegations of profes-
sional misconduct by
an Army doctor
Regional health command IG or U.S. Med-
ical Command IG
None As required 7–1j(2)
D– 2. Key mailing addresses
Table D– 2 lists the key mailing addresses located throughout the regulation and required for reports and/or
coordination.
Table D–2
List of key Department of the Army Inspector General mailing addresses —Continued
Office of the Inspector General (SAIG –ZA) The U.S. Army Inspector General Agency (SAIG –ZA), 1700 Army
Pentagon, Room 3E588, Washington, DC 20310 –1700
Operations and Support Division (SAIG –OP) The U.S. Army Inspector General Agency (SAIG –OP), 1700 Army
Pentagon, Room 5C560, Washington, DC 20310 –1700
Directorate Integration Group (SAIG –DI) (Inspections Direc-
torate)
U.S. Army Inspector General Agency Directorate Integration Group
(SAIG –DI), Taylor Building, Suite 12194, 2530 Crystal Drive, Ar-
lington, VA 22202
Assistance Division (SAIG –AC) The U.S. Army Inspector General Agency (SAIG –AC), 1700 Army
Pentagon, Room 1D116, Washington, DC 20310 –1700
Investigations Division (SAIG –IN) The U.S. Army Inspector General Agency (SAIG –IN), 1700 Army
Pentagon, Room 1E115A, Washington, DC 20310 –1700
Intelligence Oversight Division (SAIG –IO) The U.S. Army Inspector General Agency (SAIG –IO), 1700 Army
Pentagon, Room 5C559, Washington, DC 20310 –1700
Legal advisor (SAIG –JA) The U. S. Army Inspector General Agency (SAIG –JA), 1700 Army
Pentagon, Room 1E132, Washington, DC 20310 –1700
Records-Release Office (SAIG –JAR) The U.S. Army Inspector General Agency (SAIG –JAR), 1700
Army Pentagon, Room 1E132, Washington, DC 20310 –1700
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 102
Table D–2
List of key Department of the Army Inspector General mailing addresses —Continued
Analysis and Follow-Up Office (SAIG –AI) The U.S. Army Inspector General Agency (SAIG –AI), 1700 Army
Pentagon, Room 3E588, Washington, DC 20310 –1700
U.S. Army Inspector General School (SAIG –TR) The U.S. Army Inspector General School (SAIG –TR), 5500 21st
Street, Suite 2305, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060 –5935
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 103
Appendix E
Internal Control Evaluation
E–1. Function
The internal control function covered by this checklist is IG operations.
E–2. Purpose
The purpose of this checklist is to assist unit managers and internal control administrators in evaluating the key internal
controls identified below. This checklist is not intended to address all controls and is focused specifically on IG
requirements at the ACOM, ASCC, and DRU levels and below.
E–3. Instructions
Answers must be based on the actual testing of key internal controls (for example, document analysis, direct
observation, sampling, and simulation). Answers that indicate deficiencies must be explained and corrective action
indicated in supporting documentation. These controls must be formally evaluated at least once every 5 years. Certi-
fication that this evaluation has been conducted must be accomplished on DA Form 11 – 2 (Internal Control Evaluation
Certification).
E–4. Test questions
a. Training.
(1) Have all IGs, assistant IGs, and temporary assistant IGs serving longer than 180 days completed TIGS’s basic
course?
(2) Have all Civilian IGs attended the advanced course every five years?
(3) Is a training program in place that ensures that an IG trains and supervises acting IGs?
(4) Are procedures in place to ensure that all personnel assigned IG duties are properly trained and
utilized?
(5) Are procedures in place to ensure that administrative support employees are not performing IG functions?
b. Inspections.
(1) Are IG inspections planned and integrated into the unit’s OIP?
(2) Are IG inspections designed to determine the root causes of any policy problems or deficiencies?
(3) Are the procedures outlined in AR 20 – 1 and The Inspections Guide followed during the course of an inspection?
(4) Is the IG teaching and training function used as part of the inspections process?
(5) Are the results of IG inspections provided as feedback to all affected personnel and organizations?
(6) Are IG inspectors provided sufficient train-up time for all inspections?
(7) If required, are inspection teams augmented with subject-matter experts?
(8) Are technical inspections (as applicable) conducted in accordance with applicable regulations and within the
required time frame?
(9) Are procedures in place to ensure that follow-up is conducted?
(10) Are ACOM, ASCC, and DRU IGs inspecting the Army’s Voting Assistance Program annually and reporting
the results to DAIG’s Inspections Division (SAIG – ID) no later than 30 November of each year?
c. Assistance.
(1) Is the IG teaching and training function used with the IG assistance function?
(2) Are requests for assistance that fall under another agency’s purview referred as appropriate?
(3) Are the procedures outlined in AR 20 –1, and in The Assistance and Investigations Guide, followed when con-
ducting an assistance inquiry?
(4) Are requests for assistance analyzed to identify any systemic issues or trends?
(5) Are procedures in place to ensure that IGs follow up on assistance requests?
(6) Are requests for assistance captured in the IGARS database?
d. Investigations.
(1) Are procedures in place to ensure that all IG investigations and investigative inquiries are performed
in accordance with applicable regulations and with proper authority?
(2) Are allegations against any senior official (general officer, senior executive service, promotable colonel, or
PUSMA) forwarded to DAIG’s Investigations Division within the established time standard?
(3) Are the complete names of, and allegations against, all subject(s) or suspect(s) entered into the IGARS database
within 2 working days after receipt for those allegations resulting in the initiation of an Army IG investigation,
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 104
investigative inquiry, or command-directed investigation against an Army enlisted Soldier, noncommissioned officer,
warrant officer, commissioned officer (nonpromotable colonel and below), or Army Civilian employee?
(4) Are the procedures outlined in AR 20 –1 and The Assistance and Investigations Guide followed when conduct-
ing an investigation or investigative inquiry?
(5) Is all evidence and other information collected properly marked and safeguarded?
(6) When necessary, are individuals advised of their rights and afforded due process?
(7) Are all ROIs or ROIIs prepared and distributed in accordance with AR 20 – 1 and The Assistance and
Investigations Guide?
(8) Is a written legal review provided by SJA on all investigations and investigative inquiries that require such
reviews?
(9) Is a directive for investigation obtained when required?
(10) Are all notifications made as outlined in AR 20 – 1 and in The Assistance and Investigations Guide?
(11) Does the organization complete whistleblower reprisal investigations in accordance with DODD 7050.06,
AR 20 –1, and The Assistance and Investigations Guide?
(12) Does the organization complete hotline completion reports in accordance with AR 20 – 1 and The Assistance
and Investigations Guide?
(13) Are the results of all non-senior official investigations and investigative inquiries captured in the IGARS
database?
e. Intelligence oversight.
(1) Has the IG identified all intelligence organizations subject to intelligence oversight inspection by the command?
(2) Is intelligence oversight included as part of the command’s OIP?
(3) Are intelligence oversight inspections conducted every 2 years?
(4) Are the procedures outlined in AR 20 – 1 and The Intelligence Oversight Guide followed during the course of an
intelligence oversight inspection?
(5) Are procedures in place for determining if intelligence and supporting SJA personnel of organizations under-
stand and comply with the procedures in AR 381 – 10?
(6) Are procedures in place for determining if all intelligence personnel are trained in intelligence oversight upon
initial assignment and periodically thereafter?
(7) Are questionable activities and Federal crimes committed by intelligence personnel reported as required under
AR 381 – 10?
(8) Are procedures in place to ensure that follow-up is conducted?
f. Information systems security.
(1) Is automation equipment properly accounted for and operational?
(2) Is all required data from assistance and investigations cases entered into the IGARS database?
(3) Are procedures in place to ensure that IGNET security (both physical and data) is maintained?
(4) Are procedures in place to safeguard and protect IG files and information?
(5) Are IG files and documents properly marked, stored, and destroyed in accordance with applicable regulations?
g. Legal : Are all FOIA requests received by field IG staff sections transferred to DAIG’s Records-Release Office
for action?
E–5. Supersession
This checklist replaces the checklist previously published in AR 20 –1, dated 29 November 2010.
E–6. Comments
Submit comments to make this checklist a better tool for evaluating internal controls to The U.S. Army Inspector
General Agency (SAIG – OP), 1700 Army Pentagon, Room 5C560, Washington, DC 20310 – 1700.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 105
Glossary
Section I
Abbreviations
ACOM
Army command
ADP
Army Doctrine Publication
AG
Adjutant General
AGR
Active Guard Reserve
ANG
Air National Guard
AR
Army regulation
ARIMS
Army Records Information Management System
ARNG
Army National Guard
ARNGUS
Army National Guard of the United States
ASCC
Army service component command
ASI
additional skill identifier
ATRRS
Army Training Requirements and Resources System
BSAT
biological select agents and toxins
CES
Civilian Education System
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
CID
Criminal Investigation Division
CNGB
Chief, National Guard Bureau
COE
certificate of eligibility
CONUS
continental United States
COTS
commercial off-the-shelf
CP
Career Program
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 106
CPAC
Civilian Personnel Advisory Center
CPOC
civilian personnel operations center
CPT
captain
CSA
Chief of Staff, Army
CSI
chemical surety inspection
CSM
command sergeant major
DA
Department of the Army
DA Pam
Department of the Army pamphlet
DAC
Department of the Army Civilian
DAIG
Department of the Army Inspector General
DCS
Deputy Chief of Staff
DOD
Department of Defense
DODD
Department of Defense directive
DODI
Department of Defense instruction
DODIG
Department of Defense Inspector General
DODM
Department of Defense manual
DRU
direct reporting unit
DTIG
Deputy, The Inspector General
EEO
Equal Employment Opportunity
EO
equal opportunity
FM
field manual
FMCOM
U.S. Army Financial Management Command
FMR
Force Management Report
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 107
FOIA
Freedom of Information Act
FORSCOM
U.S. Army Forces Command
FOUO
for official use only
FY
fiscal year
GG
General Government
GOFRB
General Officer Federal Recognition Board
GS
general schedule
HCR
Hotline Completion Report
HIPAA
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
HQDA
Headquarters, Department of the Army
HRC
U.S. Army Human Resources Command
IA
information assurance
IAM
information assurance manager
IAPM
information assurance program manager
IG
inspector general
IGAP
Inspector General action process
IGAR
inspector general action request
IGARS
Inspector General Action Request System
IGNET
Inspector General Network
IMA
individual mobilization augmentee
IMCOM
U.S. Army Installation Management Command
IMO
information management officer
INSCOM
U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 108
IO
intelligence oversight division
IRMD
Information Resource Management Division
IRR
Individual Ready Reserve
JFHQ
Joint Forces Headquarters
JTF
Joint task force
LCMC
Life cycle management command
MARC
manpower requirements criteria
MC
Member of Congress
M–day
mobilization day
MEDCOM
U.S. Army Medical Command
MEL
Military Education Level
MOS
military occupational specialty
MRE
Military Rules of Evidence
MSC
major subordinate command
MSG
master sergeant
MTF
military treatment facility
MTOE
modified table of organization and equipment
NAC
national agency check
NAF
nonappropriated fund
NCO
noncommissioned officer
NCOER
noncommissioned officer evaluation report
NDAA
National Defense Authorization Act
NG
national guard
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 109
NGB
National Guard Bureau
NGR
National Guard Regulation
NIPR
nonsecure internet protocol router
OCLL
Office of the Chief of Legislative Liaison
OCONUS
outside the continental United States
OER
officer evaluation report
OIP
Organizational Inspection Program
OOI
office of inquiry
OOR
office of record
OSC
Office of Special Counsel
OSJA
Office of the Staff Judge Advocate
OTIG
Office of The Inspector General
OTJAG
Office of The Judge Advocate General
PA
Privacy Act
PEO
program executive officer
PM
program manager
PUSMA
Professor, U. S. Military Academy
RC
Reserve Component
RDEC
Research, Development, and Engineering Center
ROI
report of investigation
ROII
report of investigative inquiry
RRS–A
Army Records Retention Schedule-Army
SAIG
Secretary of Army Inspector General (and office symbol for combined elements of OTIG and USAIGA)
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 110
SAP
Special Access Program
SATFA
Security and Assistance Training Field Activity
SAV
staff assistance visit
SECARMY
Secretary of the Army
SES
senior executive service
SFC
sergeant first class
SGM
sergeant major
SIPR
secure internet protocol router
SJA
staff judge advocate
SQI
special qualification identifier
SRM
sustainable readiness model
SSN
social security number
TAG
The Adjutant General
TDA
table of distribution and allowances
TIG
The Inspector General
TIGS
The U.S. Army Inspector General School
TIP
trafficking in persons
TJAG
The Judge Advocate General
TOE
table of organization and equipment
TPU
troop program unit
TRADOC
U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command
UCMJ
Uniform Code of Military Justice
UIC
unit identification code
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 111
USACIDC
U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command
USAIGA
U.S. Army Inspector General Agency
USAR
U.S. Army Reserve
USARC
U.S. Army Reserve Command
USASOC
U.S. Army Special Operations Command
USC
United States Code
VCSA
Vice Chief of Staff, Army
VLAN
virtual local area network
WAN
wide area network
WHLO
White House Liaison Office
WIAS
Worldwide Individual Augmentation System
WIOB
Whistleblower Investigations and Oversight Branch
WO
warrant officer
1SG
first sergeant
Section II
Terms
Abuse
Intentional misuse or improper use of Government resources. Examples include misuse of grade, position, or authority
or misuse of resources such as tools, vehicles, or copying machines.
Adverse action
Any personnel action, administrative or judicial, that takes away an entitlement, results in an entry or document added
to the affected person’s official personnel records that boards or superiors could consider negative, or permits the
affected person to rebut or appeal the action. “Personnel action” includes actions defined in 5 USC 2302 and 10 USC
1587 as well as in DODD 7050.06, E2.8. Adverse action includes “unfavorable information” as described in AR
600 – 37; action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice; or, with regard to Army Civilian employees, “disciplinary
action” pursuant to applicable regulations, including AR 690 – 700 for appropriated fund employees and AR 215 – 3 for
NAF employees. Other actions include a demotion; a transfer or reassignment; a performance evaluation; a decision
on pay, benefits, awards, or training; referral for mental health evaluations under DODI 6490.04; and any other sig-
nificant change in duties or responsibilities inconsistent with the military or Civilian member’s rank or grade. A com-
mander or supervisor desiring to take such action against an individual based on an IG document (except for DODIG-
approved Army IG ROI or ROIIs containing substantiated allegations of violations of 10 USC 1034) requires TIG
release of that document.
Allegation
The term "allegation" has two specific meanings given the context within which it is used.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 112
a. An allegation is generally a statement or assertion of a violation of a rule, regulation, policy, directive, order, re-
quirement, or law (or similar standard) normally submitted by a third party against an individual. In this general
context, allegation has the same definition as a complaint.
b. The term allegation can, however, be used in an IG-specific context as one of the two possible parts of a complaint
(the other part being an issue). When used in an IG-specific context, allegation may refer to the specific way that a
violation of a rule, regulation, policy, directive, order, requirement, or law (or similar standard) is formulated or
drafted. No matter how or in what form someone might submit an allegation as part of a complaint, the IG has complete
discretion over how the allegation is ultimately formulated or drafted in the ROI, ROII, or modified ROII. An allega-
tion in the IG-specific context normally contains four essential elements: who, improperly, did or failed to do what,
in violation of an established standard. The IG refines allegations based upon evidence gathered during the course of
an investigation or investigative inquiry.
Assistance inquiry
An informal factfinding process used to address or respond to a complaint involving a request for assistance, infor-
mation, or other issues but not allegations of impropriety or wrongdoing.
Audit
An independent appraisal activity within the Army for the review of financial, accounting, and other operations as a
basis for protective and constructive service to command and management at all levels.
Career Program 55 (CP55)
A Civilian career program for Department of the Army Civilians Inspectors General (IG). CP55 establishes the career
path and progression for all Army Civilians in all components. The Inspector General of the Army serves as the CP55
Functional Chief responsible for the entire life-cycle management of the IG Civilian workforce.
Closed without findings
An inquiry or investigation is terminated (or closed without findings) prior to conclusion due to time (older
than 3 years), a court order or Government settlement, or referral to another command or agency as part of a larger
systemic issue.
Command Inspector General
The senior IG of an MTOE or TDA organization of the Regular Army, ARNG, or USAR. The command IG works
directly for the commander, who is normally a commanding general, installation commander, State AG, or director
of an organization. Command IGs in States are often called State IGs.
Command Product
Command products include, but are not limited to, Rule for Courts-Martial 303 preliminary inquiries; Article 138:
Uniform Code of Military Justice inquiries or investigations; and formal and informal investigations conducted under
the provisions of AR 15 –6.
Complainant
Any person or organization submitting an IGAR. The person can be a Soldier, Family member, member of another
Service, Government employee, or member of the general public. The organization can be any public or private entity.
Complaint
An expression of dissatisfaction or discontent with a process or system or the specific behavior of an individual.
Complaints often contain both issues and allegations.
Compliance inspection
An inspection that focuses solely on a unit’s or organization’s compliance with a specified standard or series
of standards. This inspection approach presumes that the established standards are correct but does not preclude the
inspector from determining the root causes of noncompliance—even if those root causes are matters that exceed the
unit’s or organization’s ability to correct at the local level. General inspections are compliance inspections by nature.
Corrective action
Any action deemed necessary to rectify a violation or deficiency or to provide redress, to include changes
in regulations or practices, administrative or disciplinary action against offending personnel, or referral to responsible
officials or agencies for appropriate remedial action.
DAIG
Department of the Army Inspector General: The abbreviation for the combined elements of OTIG and USAIGA.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 113
Directing authority
An official who has authority to direct an IG investigation or inspection. At DA, the directing authorities are the SA,
the Under Secretary of the Army, the CSA, the VCSA and TIG. Commanders or directors who are authorized IGs on
their staffs may direct IG investigations and IG inspections within their commands. A directing authority may
not delegate his or her directing authority but may delegate in writing report approval authority to a deputy commander
or director. The SA, the Under Secretary of the Army, the CSA, the VCSA, and TIG may direct IG investigations and
IG inspections within subordinate commands as necessary. Although command and State IGs may direct IG investi-
gative inquiries, they are not considered directing authorities. When a rear detachment, rear unit commander, or an
acting commander is appointed in accordance with AR 220 –5, that commander becomes a directing authority for the
rear-area IG.
Directive
A directive authorizes an IG investigation or IG inspection and represents the investigator’s authority to investigate
specific allegations and the inspector’s authority to conduct an IG inspection.
Federal interest
As used in this regulation, the term means those areas in which the Federal Government has legitimate concern. By
definition, if the matter is not of Federal interest, it is a matter of State interest. In the abstract, the role of the Regular
Army IG in ARNG matters is relatively simple. If the issue is of Federal interest, the Regular Army IG may inspect,
investigate, or assist. If the issue is not a matter of Federal interest, the Regular Army IG cannot act, so IGs must
examine each case independently to determine if the matter is of Federal interest. The authority of the Regular Army
IG to act in ARNG matters is very broad but not without limitations. All questions of Federal versus State interest will
be discussed with the appropriate SJA office.
a. Under regulations prescribed by the SA, the SA may have an inspection conducted by IGs or, if necessary, by any
other commissioned officers of the Regular Army detailed for that purpose, to determine whether—
(1) The amount and condition of property held by the ARNG are satisfactory.
(2) The ARNG is organized as provided in this title.
(3) The members of the ARNG meet prescribed physical and other qualifications.
(4) The ARNG and its organization are properly uniformed, armed, and equipped and are being trained and
instructed for Active Duty in the field, or for coast defense.
(5) ARNG records are being kept in accordance with this title.
(6) The accounts and records of each U.S. property and fiscal officer and property are maintained.
b. Based on the above, the following are included within the area of Federal interest: the organization, training, oper-
ations, supply, procurement, and fiscal matters connected with ARNG; examination of material prepared relevant to
the returns and reports State AGs are required to make to the SA; activities that, if true, would be a basis for withdrawal
of Federal recognition; and dereliction. (For further guidance, contact the Chief, National Guard Bureau (NGB – IG),
Suite 11600, 1411 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202 – 3259.)
First Party
A first party, as used in this regulation, is someone whom a second party has aggrieved in the context of violating a
rule, regulation, policy, directive, order, requirement, or law (or similar standard) and who reports it to, or brings it to
the attention of, an appropriate authority that can take action to resolve the matter. The first party is often the com-
plainant (see the definition of complainant).
Followup inspection
An inspection of the action taken to correct deficiencies found during a previous inspection. Its aim is to assess
whether the corrective action is effective and complete; is producing the desired results; is not causing new problems;
and is economical, efficient, practical, and feasible.
Founded
A final disposition for an IG issue to be used when the IG’s inquiry into the matter determined that the problem had
merit and required resolution.
Fraud
Any intentional deception designed to deprive the United States unlawfully of something of value or to secure from
the United States for an individual a benefit, privilege, allowance, or consideration to which he or she is not entitled.
Such practices include, but are not limited to, the offer, payment, or acceptance of bribes or gratuities; making
false statements; submitting false claims; using false weights or measures; evading or corrupting inspectors or other
officials; deceit either by suppressing the truth or misrepresenting material fact; adulterating or substituting materials;
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 114
falsifying records and books or accounts; arranging for secret profits, kickbacks, or commissions; and conspiring to
use any of these devices. The term also includes conflict of interest cases, criminal irregularities, and the unauthorized
disclosure of official information relating to procurement and disposal matters.
General inspection
A comprehensive inspection focused on the overall economy, efficiency, discipline, morale, or readiness aspects of a
unit, organization, or activity. The objective of a general inspection is to produce a comprehensive picture of the unit’s
status at that time, but commanders may limit the scope of the inspection to only a few areas. This type of inspection
is compliance-oriented by nature (see the definition of a compliance inspection).
Hand–off
An administrative procedure that transfers a verified finding that is beyond the authority or ability of the inspecting
command to change from one command or agency IG to another command or agency. The finding is verified once
the directing authority approves it.
IG assistance function
The process of receiving, inquiring into, recording, and responding to complaints, or responding to requests either
brought directly to the IG or referred to the IG for action concerning matters of Army interest.
IG inspection
An inspection that focuses on the identification of problems, the determination of their root causes, the development
of possible solutions, and the assignment of responsibilities for correcting the problems. Inspectors general
normally conduct special inspections of systemic issues that affect a particular functional area such as logistics, per-
sonnel, maintenance, training, and so forth. The IG’s commander approves the scope and content of all IG
inspections. Inspectors general generally do not perform compliance-oriented general inspections of units,
organizations, and activities but instead defer those inspections to commanders in accordance with AR 1 – 201.
IG inspection function
The process of developing and implementing IG inspection programs, conducting IG inspections, and providing
oversight of the OIP and intelligence activities.
IG investigation
A formal factfinding examination into allegations, issues, or adverse conditions of a serious nature that provides the
directing authority a sound basis for making decisions and taking action. An IG investigation involves the systematic
collection and examination of evidence that consists of testimony recorded under oath; documents; and, in some cases,
physical evidence. Only the directing authority can authorize IG investigations using a written and signed directive.
IGs normally do not resolve allegations using this methodology but instead rely on the investigative inquiry. IGs report
the conclusions of their investigations using an ROI. Occasionally, IG investigations may examine systemic issues,
especially when the possibility of some wrongdoing exists. For example, an IG might investigate an allegation that
the development of a weapon system is fraught with fraud, waste, and abuse.
IG investigations function
The process of receiving, examining, and responding to allegations and, in some cases, issues referred to an IG. The
investigations function encompasses IG investigations and IG investigative inquiries.
IG investigative inquiry
An informal factfinding examination into allegations, issues, or adverse conditions that are not significant in nature—
as deemed by the command IG or directing authority—and when the potential for serious consequences (such as
potential harm to a Soldier) are not foreseen. The IG investigative inquiries involve the collection and examination of
evidence that consists of testimony or written statements; documents; and, in some cases, physical evidence. Com-
mand IGs direct investigative inquiries and provide recommendations to the directing authority or subordinate com-
manders as appropriate. The directing authority reserves the right to direct an investigative inquiry if he or she feels
an investigation is not appropriate. IGs resolve most allegations using this methodology and report their conclusions
using an ROII.
IG office of inquiry
The IG staff section that actually works a case. The OOI is not always the OOR; in such cases, the OOI will forward
to the OOR the completed IG product (assistance inquiry, ROI, and so forth) for final disposition by the office of
record, to include making final notifications.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 115
IG office of record
The IG staff section in which the IGAR originated. This staff section is responsible for the final disposition of the case
(or cases), to include data entry into IGARS and making final notifications. For every IGAR, there can be only one
IG OOR although more than one IG staff section may maintain a copy of the record. When the IGAR or IG record
falls within more than one commander’s sphere of activity, the IG OOR is the highest level IG staff section that
assumes responsibility for the IGAR even though the higher echelon IG may ask or direct the lower command level
IG to work the IGAR or assist in the resolution process as the OOI. In these cases, the OOR will receive and use the
OOI’s final product to close the case. Except for TIG, IGs referring IGARs to IG staff sections at higher, lower, or
adjacent levels for resolution should request, but cannot direct, that the other IG staff section serve as the IG
office of record.
Individual mobilization augmentee
An unfunded, temporary duty position identified on a supported combatant command’s Joint Manning Document to
augment staff operations during contingency missions.
Inspector general action request
A complaint or request for information or help presented or referred to an IG. An IGAR may be submitted in person,
over the telephone, in writing, by email, or through a DOD Hotline referral.
Inspector General Action Request System
A subsystem of IGNET that provides an automated means of recording, storing, and analyzing data pertaining to IG
casework.
Inspector General Network (IGNET)
An information management system designed to support IG data collection, analysis, communication, and adminis-
trative requirements. The IGNET database uses both manual and automated techniques to record selected data gener-
ated as a result of IG activities. This data is processed to produce management information products at each IG staff
section. The IGARS database is a component of IGNET.
Inspector general records
Any written, recorded, or electronic media information gathered and/or produced by an IG. Inspector general records
include, but are not limited to, any correspondence or documents received from a witness or a person requesting
assistance; IG reports of inspection, inquiry, and investigation; IGNET or other computer automated data processing
files or data; and DA Form 1559 when entries are made on either side. Inspector general records may contain
documents that an IG did not prepare.
Inspector general referral
An administrative procedure in which an IG staff section refers a case to another IG staff section while retaining
office- of-record status (meaning that the IG staff section receiving the referral is the OOI); these types of referrals
may only occur within a vertical echelon of command such as ACOM to corps to division. An IG staff section may
refer a case horizontally to another echelon of command (such as from one ACOM to another) but only with full OOR
status for the gaining IG staff section. In all cases, the gaining IG staff section must agree to accept the case. IGs may
also refer complainants to the command or to other agencies within or outside the command better suited to address
the complaint.
Inspector general system
The four Army IG functions as executed by all Army IGs over whom TIG has policy oversight and certification
authority. IGs work for their respective commanders but must adhere to IG policy as established and promulgated by
TIG.
Inspector general technical channels
Relationship among all IGs throughout the Army. Provides a confidential channel for passing IG information.
Inspector general oversight
A fundamental, deliberate activity of the IG to watch over the application of policy, adherence to established standards,
and effectiveness of Army programs.
Issue
A complaint, request for information, or request for assistance to the IG that does not list a specific individual as the
violator of a standard or policy.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 116
Law of war
That part of international law that regulates the conduct of armed hostilities. The law of war encompasses
all international law for the conduct of hostilities binding on the United States or its individual citizens, including
treaties and international agreements to which the United States is a party, and applicable customary interna-
tional law.
M–day
An M-day member (ARNG and Air National Guard) is one who performs weekend drill but is not on full-time duty.
Similar to a USAR TPU Soldier.
Mismanagement
A collective term covering acts of waste and abuse. The extravagant, careless, or needless expenditure of Government
funds or the consumption or misuse of Government property or resources resulting from deficient practices, systems,
controls, or decisions. Also includes abuse of authority or similar actions that do not involve criminal fraud.
Not substantiated
Conclusion drawn by an IG at the close of an investigative inquiry or investigation when the preponderance of credible
evidence suggests that the subject or suspect did not do what was alleged in the allegation.
Pre–decisional
Internal advice and recommendations, as contrasted with factual matters, pertaining to an agency decision-making
process.
Program manager
Individual chartered by the SA who reports directly to the PEO, who in turn reports to the Army acquisition executive.
Protected communication
a. For Servicemembers—
(1) Any lawful communication to a Member of Congress or an IG.
(2) A communication in which a member of the Armed Forces communicates information that the member
reasonably believes provides evidence of a violation of law or regulation, including sexual harassment or unlawful
discrimination, gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds or other resources, an abuse of authority, or a substantial
and specific danger to public health or safety when such a communication is made to any of the following:
(a) A Member of Congress; an IG; or a member of a DOD audit, inspection, investigation, or law enforcement organ-
ization. (b) Any other person or organization (including any person or organization in the chain of command) desig-
nated under component regulations or other established administrative procedures (that is, equal opportunity advisor,
safety officer, and so forth) to receive such communications. (See AR 600 – 20 for definition of chain of
command.)
b. For appropriated fund Civilians, a protected communication is any disclosure to the special counsel, or to the in-
spector general of an agency or another employee designated by the head of the agency to receive such disclosures,
of information which the employee or applicant reasonably believes evidences—
(1) A violation of any law, rule, or regulation.
(2) Gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public
health or safety (see 10 USC 2302).
c. For NAF employees, a protected communication is a disclosure by such an employee or applicant to any Civilian
employee or member of the armed forces designated by law or by the Secretary of Defense to receive disclosures of
information, which the employee or applicant reasonably believes evidences—
(1) A violation of any law, rule, or regulation.
(2) Mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health
or safety (see 10 USC 1587).
Reclama
A request to have a finding reviewed for validity. The receiver or the subject or suspect of the finding disputes the
validity of the finding or conclusion and seeks to have it overturned. The receiver or the subject or suspect provides
actual facts and/or an interpretation of regulatory requirements in the reclama to challenge the finding.
Report of investigation
A written report used by IGs to address allegations, issues, or adverse conditions to provide the directing authority a
sound basis for decisions. The directing authority approves the ROI. The ROI format is addressed at chapter 7 of this
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 117
regulation. Any IG who investigates or inquires into issues and adverse conditions may use these same
formats.
Report of investigative inquiry
A written report used by IGs to address allegations, issues, or adverse conditions to provide the directing authority,
command, or State IG a sound basis for decisions. The directing authority or command or State IG approves the ROII.
The ROII format is addressed at chapter 7 of this regulation.
Reprisal
The taking of (or threatening to take) an unfavorable personnel action or the withholding (or threatening to withhold)
a favorable personnel action because the member made (or was thought to have made) a protected communication.
Responsible management official(s)
Responsible management officials, in the context of Whistleblower Reprisal investigations, are—
a. Official(s) who influenced or recommended to the deciding official that he/she take, withhold, or threaten to
take/withhold a management/personnel action.
b. Official(s) who decided to take, withhold, or threaten the management/personnel action.
c. Any other official(s) who approved, reviewed, or indorsed the management/personnel action.
Restriction
A form of reprisal. 10 USC 1034 prohibits anyone from restricting a member of the Armed Forces from making lawful
communications to a Member of Congress or an Inspector General.
Retaliation
Ostracism and acts of cruelty, oppression, or maltreatment.
Root cause
The reason why something was deficient or why a unit or individual was unable to comply with established standards.
Identifying the root cause of a problem is an integral part of all IG inspections and forms the basis for recommendations
that will solve the problem.
Second party
A second party, as used in this regulation, is someone alleged to have affected a first party in the context of violating
a rule, regulation, policy, directive, order, requirement, or law (or similar standard). Second parties are normally the
subjects and suspects in IG investigations and investigative inquiries (see the definition of subject / suspect).
Senior official
Senior officials are defined as general officers (including ARNGUS, USAR, and retired general officers), promotable
colonels, PUSMAs, SES Civilians, and special government employees (scientific or professional, senior level, defense
intelligence senior level, and highly qualified experts). A National Guard colonel becomes a senior official when the
officer is submitted to compete on a GOFRB for a COE and remains a senior official until completion of the GOFRB
process. Colonels selected by the GOFRB, confirmed by the Senate for a COE, and assigned to a general officer billet
are considered senior officials. Colonels who receive a COE but are not assigned to a general officer billet are not
considered senior officials until they are assigned to, or nominated for, a general officer billet or nominated for a
general officer billet.
Senior Commander Augmentation TDA
Senior Commander Augmentation TDA personnel provide seamless and continuous administrative and Title 10 sup-
port to installation senior commanders. Senior Commander Augmentation TDA personnel work closely with both the
senior command’s staff and the garrison staff to ensure support for nondeployed units and to sustain installation op-
erations when the senior command deploys to an overseas theater of operations.
Sensing session
A group interview conducted by IGs to gather information from specific individuals based upon grade, gender, race,
and other criteria established by the IG. IGs use sensing sessions as an information-gathering domain for all IG
functions, especially for the IG inspections function.
Special inspection
An inspection of a function, system, or program (or set of functions, systems, or programs) that focuses on a specific
problem area or topic rather than on an individual unit. Its scope is limited and specifically defined to focus on matters
with systemic implications.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 118
State Adjutant General
Includes The Adjutant General (TAG) of a State, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or territory who is the senior
National Guard officer and a State official whose authority is recognized in Federal law. The State, territory, or com-
monwealth governor appoints TAGs with the exceptions of South Carolina (where they are elected in a general elec-
tion) and in Vermont (where the State legislature elects them). The senior National Guard officer in the District of
Columbia, the Commanding General, is appointed by the President and serves in a role similar to that of a TAG.
State IG
The Regular Army senior IG (normally a colonel or lieutenant colonel) of a State, commonwealth, territory, or the
District of Columbia. The State IG is the State’s command IG and normally works directly for the State AG. All States
do not have Regular Army State IGs.
State interest
The limited number of activities from which Regular Army IGs are prevented from inspecting, investigating, or as-
sisting. (See Federal interest, above.)
Substantiated
Conclusion drawn by an IG at the close of an investigative inquiry or investigation when the preponderance of credible
information suggests that the subject or suspect actually did what was alleged.
Systemic issue
Situation evidenced by a failure, through a pattern of noncompliance, of an established process or system to function
as designed and which does not entail an allegation of impropriety against an individual. The functional system may
suffer from various problems at several command echelons, which means that the problems are beyond the ability of
local commanders to solve. IGs inspect these systemic issues after problems arise at several levels within the command
in order to identify the disruptions in the system, function, or program (these disruptions in the system normally
become the inspection objectives); determine the root causes of those disruptions; and recommend solutions that,
when implemented, will resolve the disruptions and allow the system to flow smoothly once more. Although systemic
issues normally appear within vertical echelons of command, they may cross command boundaries horizontally de-
pending on the nature of the system, function, or program in question.
Third party
A third party, as used in this regulation, is one who discovers, observes, or otherwise becomes aware of what he or
she believes is a violation of a rule, regulation, policy, directive, order, requirement, or law (or similar standard) and
who reports it or brings it to the attention of someone other than the person believed to have committed the violation.
Furthermore, this third party has not been personally aggrieved by the actions of the person believed to have committed
the violation (usually known as the second party).
Tier III
Contractor maintenance support.
Triangle of confidentiality
A triangle formed by the complainant, IG, and the IG’s commander. The triangle signifies the IG’s responsibility to
protect the identity of the complainant to the greatest extent possible while serving as the extension of the commander.
The triangle does not imply that the IG will make total disclosure of all sources of information or that the IG can make
total disclosure to all parties involved in the triangle. The intent behind the triangle is threefold: to protect privacy,
maintain confidence in the IG System, and minimize the risk of reprisal action.
Unfavorable information
Any credible, derogatory information that may reflect on an individual’s character, integrity, trustworthiness,
or reliability.
Unfounded
One of two final dispositions for an IGissue to be used when the IG’s assistance inquiry into the matter yields no
evidence that a problem existed for the IG to resolve.
VLAN (virtual local area network)
A switched network that is logically segmented by functions, project teams, or applications without regard to the
physical location of the users. Each switch port can be assigned to a VLAN. Ports assigned to a given VLAN share
broadcasts. Ports not assigned to the VLAN cannot share those broadcasts.
AR 20–1 • 23 March 2020 119
Waste
The extravagant, careless, or needless expenditure of Government funds, or the consumption of Government property
that results from deficient practices, systems, controls, or decisions. The term also includes improper practices not
involving prosecutable fraud.
UNCLASSIFIED PIN 000296–000 

Categories: Army Regulation