JAGMAN

Question 1

Preliminary Inquiry

Answer 1

1. a quick and informal investigative tool that can be used to
   determine initially whether a particular incident is serious enough to warrant some form of JAGMAN investigation.
2. A PI is not necessarily required, however, it is an advisory
   first step for commanders for all incidents potentially warranting an investigation.

Question 2

Method of inquiry (PI)

Answer 2

1. The convening authority (CA) may conduct a PI personally or appoint a member of the command to do so.
2. There are no requirements nor restrictions governing how the inquiry is to be accomplished. The goal is to take a “quick look” at a particular incident (e.g., a minor fender-bender), and gather enough information so that an informed decision can be made regarding whether some sort of JAGMAN
   investigation is truly necessary.
3. Generally, the PI should not take any longer than three (3) working days. If more time is required, it means that the inquiry officer is attempting to do too much or has not been sufficiently instructed as to what issue(s) is to be addressed.
4. Upon completion of the PI, a report is tendered to the CA. The PI report need not be in writing, but some form of limited documentation is advisable.

Question 3

Command options (PI)

Answer 3

• Upon reviewing the results of the PI, the CA should take one of the following actions:
  1. Take no further action.
  2. Conduct a command investigation.
  3. Convene a litigation-report investigation. Consultation with the “cognizant judge advocate” is required.
  4. Convene a court or board of inquiry.
  Note: It is always appropriate for the CA to consult with a judge advocate before deciding how to proceed.

Question 4

Reporting the results of PIs

Answer 4

1. After deciding which of the command options to exercise, the CA is to report that decision to his/her immediate superior in the chain-of command (ISIC).
2. This does not require a special, stand-alone report; command decisions on PIs are to be relayed in the context of existing situational reporting systems.
3. You should determine if your ISIC has issued guidance
   on what types of incidents should be or should not be reported.

Question 5

Review of command decision

Answer 5

1. The initial determination of which option to exercise is
   a matter of command discretion. Superiors in the chain-of-command may direct that an option be reconsidered or that a particular course of action be taken.

Question 6

Command Investigations (CI)

Answer 6

1. By far the most common administrative investigation
   (known as “informal investigations” or “investigations not requiring a hearing”).
2. The Command Investigation (CI) functions to search out, develop, assemble, analyze, and record all available information relative to the incident under investigation.
3. The findings of fact, opinions and recommendations developed may provide the basis for various actions designed to improve command management and administration, publish “lessons learned” to the fleet, and allow for fully informed administrative determinations.

Question 7

When required CI?

Answer 7

1. CIs are likely to be the appropriate investigative tool for incidents involving: aircraft mishaps; explosions; ship stranding or flooding; fires; loss of government funds or property; firearm accidents; security violations; injury to
   servicemembers, where such injury is incurred while “not in the line of duty”; and deaths of servicemembers where there is a “nexus,” or connection, to naval service.
2. A CI would not be used for the following: “Major” incidents, incidents that have resulted or are likely to result in claims or litigation against or for the Navy or the United States. If a “major” incident, the GCMCA will assume cognizance of the case and decide whether to convene a court or board of inquiry. If a claim or litigation issue appears to be the primary purpose for the investigation, then a litigation-report investigation is required.

Question 8

Rules on Convening (CI)

Answer 8

1. A CI will be convened, in writing, by the CA. When the CA feels that the investigation of an incident is impractical or inappropriate for the command to investigate, another command may be requested to conduct the investigation.
2. When circumstances do not allow for completion of an investigation, (e.g., deployments), requests for assistance may be directed to superiors in the chain of-command.
3. When more than one command is involved, a single investigation should be conducted and coordination /cooperation is required. Special convening rules for incidents involving injuries to Marine Corps personnel are contained in JAGMAN.

Question 9

Time Periods (CI)

Answer 9

1. The CA will prescribe when the report is due, normally 30 days from the date of the convening order.
2. The CA may grant extensions as needed. Requests and
   authorizations for extensions need not be in writing, but must be noted in the preliminary statement of the final report.

Question 10

Conducting the Investigation (CI)

Answer 10

1. The general goal is to find out who, what, when, where, how and why an incident occurred. The IO should decide what the purpose and methodology of his/her investigation is before starting to collect evidence.
2. One of the principle advantages of the CI is that the IO is not bound by formal rules of evidence: the IO may collect, consider and include in the record any matter relevant to the investigation that is believable and authentic.

Question 11

Writing the Investigation (CI)

Answer 11

1. The key to writing a good CI is organization. As IO, you must take the time to reconstruct the incident in your mind,
   pulling together all the evidence. You must then document the incident in a readable fashion. Remember, the CA and reviewing authorities will want to understand the incident from a reading of the facts.
2. In drafting opinions and recommendations, the IO should address responsibility and accountability.

Question 12

Litigation-Report Investigations (LRI)

Answer 12

The most recently created type of JAGMAN administrative investigation is the litigation report investigation. Convening such an investigation is appropriate whenever the
primary purpose of the investigation is to prepare and defend the legal interests of the Navy in claims proceedings or civil litigation.

Question 13

Special requirements (LRI)

Answer 13

A litigation-report investigation must be: convened only after
consultation with a “cognizant judge advocate”; conducted under the direction and supervision of a judge advocate;
protected from disclosure to anyone who does not have an official need to know; conducted primarily in anticipation of claims and/or litigation; and ultimately forwarded to
the Judge Advocate General.

Question 14

Rules on convening (LRI)

Answer 14

After first consulting with the cognizant judge advocate, a

litigation-report investigation will be convened, in writing, by the CA.

Question 15

Conducting the Investigation (LRI)

Answer 15

As with the CI, the general goal of the litigation-report investigation is to document who, what, when, where, how and why an incident occurred.

Question 16

Writing the Investigation (LRI)

Answer 16

The key to writing a litigation-report investigation is organization. As IO, you must take the time to reconstruct the incident in your mind, pulling together all the evidence. You must then document the incident in a readable fashion. Remember, the CA and reviewing authorities will want to
understand the incident from a reading of the facts.

Question 17

Protection (LRI)

Answer 17

1. The IO must properly mark the litigation-report investigative report. Copies of the report, and any of the working notes of the IO, must be maintained in files marked “FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY: LITIGATION/ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT” and safeguarded against improper disclosure.
2. A judge advocate should be consulted before releasing the report, or any portion thereof, to anyone.

Question 18

Line of Duty (LOD) and Misconduct Determinations

Answer 18

To assist in the administration of naval personnel issues, the commanding officer is required to inquire into certain cases of injury or disease incurred by members of his or her command. When these inquiries are conducted, the commanding officer is required to make what is referred to as a line of duty (LOD)/misconduct determination.

Question 19

Reason for LOD and misconduct determinations

Answer 19

Adverse LOD/misconduct determinations can affect several benefits and/or rights administered by the Department of the Navy, including: extension of enlistment; withholding of longevity and retirement multipliers for the time missed, and; denial of disability retirement and/or severance pay.

Question 20

When LOD and misconduct determinations are required

Answer 20

Findings concerning LOD/misconduct must be made in every case in which a member of the naval service incurs a disease or injury that:

1. Might result in permanent disability; or
2. results in the physical inability to perform duty for a period exceeding 24 hours

Question 21

Opinions concerning LOD

Answer 21

are prohibited in death cases.

Question 22

What constitutes “line of duty?”

Answer 22

• Injury or disease incurred by naval personnel while on active duty service is presumed to have been incurred “in line of duty” unless there is clear and convincing evidence that it was incurred:
  1. As a result of the member’s own “misconduct.”
  2. While avoiding duty by deserting.
  3. While absent without leave, and such absence materially interfered with the performance of required military duties (generally, in excess of 24 hours).
  4. While confined under sentence of a court-martial that included an unremitted dishonorable discharge.
  5. While confined under sentence of civil court following conviction of an offense that is defined as a felony by the law of the jurisdiction where convicted.
  6. As intentionally self-inflicted (e.g., shooting yourself in the foot).

Question 23

Gross Negligence and examples

Answer 23

• is wrongful conduct that constitutes more than simple negligence or carelessness. Gross negligence is a reckless disregard for one’s own safety or that of others. Examples are as follows:
  1. Simple Negligence: Exceeding the speed limit by 5 miles per hour.

2. Gross Negligence: Exceeding the speed limit by 40 miles per hour knowing that you have no brakes.
3. Proximate Cause: If the injuries are caused by a meteor falling on the car, the gross negligence involved in driving a car at a high rate of speed without brakes is not the proximate cause of the injuries.
4. Reasonably Foreseeable: If the injuries are caused by a bridge collapsing underneath the car and a Greyhound bus following the car into the water and landing on top of the car, the gross negligence involved in driving the car without
   brakes does not make those injuries reasonably foreseeable.

Question 24

The ONLY three possible misconduct and line of duty determinations are that injuries were incurred:

Answer 24

1. In the line of duty and not due to misconduct (A Marine is injured in an automobile accident through no fault of his own and was in an authorized leave or liberty status).
2. Not in the line of duty and not due to misconduct (A Marine is injured in an automobile accident through no fault of his own but while in an unauthorized absence [UA] status for more than 24 hours).
3. Not in the line of duty and due to the member’s own misconduct (A Marine in a “deserted” status gets shot while attempting armed robbery).

Question 25

LOD and misconduct Determinations (PI)

Answer 25

Each injury or disease requiring LOD/misconduct determinations must be reviewed through use of a PI.

Question 26

LOD and misconduct Determinations (CI)

Answer 26

Use of the PI and health record entries will provide sufficient documentation where injuries or disease are found to have occurred while in the line of duty, not due to misconduct. CI’s are only required when:

1. The injury or disease was incurred in such a way that suggests a finding of “misconduct” or “not in line of duty” might result (JAGMAN, 0230d(1), (2));
2. There is a reasonable chance of permanent disability and the CA considers an investigation essential to ensuring an adequate official record;
3. The injury involves a Naval or Marine Reservist and the CA considers an investigation essential to ensuring an adequate official record.

Question 27

In endorsing a CI, the CA must

Answer 27

the CA must specifically comment on the LOD/misconduct opinion and take one of the following actions:
1. If the CA concludes that the injury or disease was incurred “in line of duty” and “not due to a member’s own misconduct,” that shall be expressed

2. If, upon review of the report or record, the convening (or higher) authority believes the injury or disease was incurred not “in line of duty” or “due to the member’s own misconduct,” the member must be informed of the preliminary determination and afforded an opportunity, not to exceed 10 days, to submit any desired information to try and convince the CA otherwise.

Question 28

Required warning (LOD/ Misconduct)

Answer 28

Any person in the Armed Forces, prior to being asked to make or sign any statement relating to the origin, incidence, or aggravation of any disease or injury that he or she has suffered, shall be advised of the right not to make such a
statement

Question 29

Special considerations in Death cases

Answer 29

The circumstances surrounding the death of naval personnel, or of civilian personnel at places under military control, may be recorded in a variety of ways, such as autopsy reports, battlefield reports, and medical reports.

Note: NCIS must be notified per SECNAVINST 5520.3 series on any death case involving actual or suspected criminal conduct.

Question 30

Death cases (PI)

Answer 30

1. A PI should be conducted into the death of a member of the
   naval service or into the death of a civilian which occurs at a place under naval control.
2. At the conclusion of the PI, the CA must determine which of the options listed in JAGMAN will be exercised, and report that decision to the next superior in the chain-of-command.
3. An investigation under the JAGMAN will normally not be conducted if the PI shows that the death:
   a. Was the result of a previously know medical condition and the adequacy of military medical care is not reasonable in issue; or
   b. Was the result of enemy action.

Question 31

Limited Investigations (death cases)

Answer 31

Where the death of a service member occurred at a location
within the United States and not under military control, while the member was off-duty, and there is no discernible “nexus,” r connection, between the circumstances of the death and the naval service, the command need only obtain a copy of the investigation conducted by civilian authorities and retain it as an internal report.

Question 32

Death cases (CI)

Answer 32

A CI (or in some cases, a litigation-report investigation)
will be conducted if the PI shows:
1. The case involves civilian or other non-naval personnel found dead aboard an activity under military control where the death was apparently caused by suicide or other unusual circumstances:

2. The circumstances surrounding the death places the adequacy of military medical care reasonably at issue;
3. There exists a probable “nexus,” or connection, between the naval service and the circumstances of the death of a servicemember; or
4. It is unclear if enemy action caused the death, such as in possible “friendlyfire” incidents.

Question 33

Investigation reports will NOT contain

Answer 33

contain any opinions concerning line of duty/misconduct in death cases. Misconduct will not be attributed to a deceased
member.

Question 34

Independent reviews (death cases)

Answer 34

1. Prior to endorsement of an investigation which calls into
   question the deceased’s conduct, the CA may wish the report to be reviewed to ensure thoroughness, accuracy of the findings, and fairness to the deceased member.
2. The individual selected to conduct this review shall have no previous connection to the investigative process and must be outside the CA’s immediate chain of command. To the extent possible, the reviewer should possess training, experience, and background sufficient to allow critical analysis of the factual circumstances.

Question 35

Handling witnesses

Answer 35

1. You may obtain information by personal interview, correspondence, or telephone inquiry.
2. The IO should never obtain signed or sworn statements during the course of a litigation-report investigation unless he/she has consulted with the supervising judge advocate.
3. Before interviewing witnesses, ensure you understand when and what rights advisement may be required: if you suspect a military member has committed a criminal offense
4. Each witness should be interviewed separately. Let the witness tell what happened; don’t ask questions that suggest answers.