Pseudonymous criticism of U.S. Army investigations of commanders

A U.S. Army officer writing under the pen name Robert M. Berg criticizes a perceived lack of due process for commanders who are administratively investigated and relieved. Excerpt: 

At a time when the United States is facing worldwide threats and the first near-peer adversary in a generation, the Army is purging commanders without due process. For the Army to work, there must be trust among different levels of commands. But our current General Officers (GOs) no longer support commanders under their authority and are happy to throw away any semblance of due process to shield themselves from scrutiny. GOs hide behind investigations that remove fundamental elements of the rights of the accused and rely on “administrative actions” that are actually punitive in nature. Unsupported complaints are enough to launch full-scale investigations, lacking even basic due process.

When unscrupulous GOs disguise their witch hunts behind the veil of “administrative actions,” the Army can turn a blind eye to the procedural due-process rights of the accused. Currently, any member of a unit can levy a complaint — more accurately, a laundry list of complaints — without providing any evidence besides the allegation alone. If the allegations are part of the sacred trinity of racism, sexism, or bullying, a higher-level commander will not even question the veracity of the claims and instead will immediately appoint an investigating officer under the authority of Army Regulation 15-6 (AR 15-6).

While AR 15-6 investigations have been around a long time, their current use to circumvent due-process rights and avoid full Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) proceedings, where robust due process is afforded, is a recent trend. Trust between commanders allowed for many things to be handled commander-to-commander to tackle problems at multiple levels. But AR 15-6 does not ever require a commander to open an investigation. However, there is risk aversion among GO-level commanders, so by appointing an investigating officer (IO), they can absolve themselves of the responsibility of dealing with the complainant directly.