THE INVESTIGATION

Upon first appointment as an IO, the universal question is, "Where do I begin?" The first step is to examine the appointing order to determine the specific purpose and scope of the inquiry, remembering that the general goal is to find out who, what, when, where, how, and why an incident occurred. Next, the IO should decide exactly which procedures to follow and become fully acquainted with part A of chapter II and the specific sections of the JAGMAN listed in the appointing order. Most importantly the IO should begin work on the investigation immediately upon notification of appointment, whether or not a formal appointing order has been received. The investigation should start as soon as possible after the incident has occurred, since: 

witnesses may be required to leave the scene; a ship's operating schedule may require leaving the area of the incident; events will be fresh in the minds of witnesses; and damaged equipment/material are more apt to be in the same relative position/condition as a result of the incident.

The circumstances surrounding the particular incident under investigation will dictate the most effective method of conducting the investigation. For example, an investigation of an automobile accident, in which one or more of the parties were injured, would involve (1) interviews at the hospital with the injured parties; (2) collection of hospital records and police reports; (3) eyewitness accounts; (4) vehicle damage estimates; (5) mechanical evaluation; (6) inspection of the scene; and (7) other matters required by JAGMAN, sections 0215-0224, 0227, 0229, and 0231. On the other hand, an investigation of a shipboard casualty or the loss of a piece of equipment could involve merely the calling and examination of material witnesses.

The IO may use any method of investigation he or she finds most efficient and effective. Relevant information may be obtained from witnesses by personal interview, correspondence, telephone inquiry, or other means. One of the principal advantages of an investigation not requiring a hearing is that the interviewing of witnesses maybe done at different times and places, rather than at a formal hearing.

The IO is not bound by formal rules of evidence and may collect, consider, and include in the record any matter relevant to the inquiry that a person of average caution would consider to be believable or authentic. The IO must authenticate real and documentary items and enclose legible reproductions in the investigative report, with certification of correctness of copies or statements of authenticity. The IO may not speculate on the causes of an incident; however, inferences may be drawn from the evidence gathered to determine the likely course of conductor chain of events that occurred. In most cases, it is inappropriate for the IO to speculate on the thought process of an individual that resulted in a certain course of conduct.

As stated previously, the IO is not bound by the formal rules of evidence; however, there are certain things that cannot be combined with an investigative report.

NCIS investigations. An NCIS investigation consists of a narrative summary portion (called the Report of Investigation, where the participating agents detail the steps taken in the investigation) and enclosures. The IO is forbidden from including the narrative summary portion of the NCIS investigation in the JAGMAN investigation; however, the enclosures, which frequently comprise the bulk of an NCIS

4. By copy of this appointing order the Staff Judge Advocate's Office, Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida, is directed to furnish any necessary clerical assistance for recording the proceedings and preparing the record. Social security numbers of military personnel should be obtained through PSD or other official channels.

Figure 13-4.-Administrative support statement.

investigation, can be used. The JAGMAN investigation should not interfere with the completion of the NCIS investigation; therefore, it is advisable that the IO wait until NCIS completes its investigation before obtaining a copy for use of the statements gathered by NCIS.

Aircraft mishap investigative report. Aircraft accidents are investigated by one or more investigative bodies under existing instructions and legal requirements. For the sole purpose of safety and accident prevention, the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) issues special instructions for the conduct, analysis, and review of investigations of aircraft mishaps, These investigations are known as Aircraft Mishap Investigation Reports (AMIRs). Because these investigations are directed toward safety problems, confidentiality is essential in order to allow personnel to be honest when giving statements. Therefore, a statement obtained in an AMIR is not available to the IO from any official source. IOs from both the aircraft safety investigation and the JAGMAN investigation, however, should have equal access to all real evidence and have separate opportunities to question and obtain statements from all witnesses.

Other mishap investigation reports. For the reasons specified previously, these mishap investigation reports cannot be included in JAGMAN investigations.

Inspector General reports. These reports cannot be included in JAGMAN investigations.

Polygraph examinations. Neither polygraph reports nor their results should be included in the JAGMAN investigative report; however, if essential for a complete understanding of the incident, the location of the polygraph report should be cross-referenced in the report.

Medical quality assurance investigations. A naval hospital will conduct its own investigation (much the same as the AMIR). Confidentiality is essential here also. Therefore, statements obtained in a medical quality assurance investigation cannot be used in a JAGMAN investigation.

Photographs, records, operating logs, pertinent directives, watchlists, and pieces of damaged equipment are examples of evidence that the 10 may have to identify, accumulate, and evaluate. To the extent consistent with mission requirements, the CA will make sure all evidence is properly preserved and safeguarded until the investigation is complete and all relevant actions have been taken.

Photographs and videotapes that have sufficient clarity to depict actual conditions are invaluable as evidence. Although, in some instances, color photos present the best pictorial description, they are more difficult to reproduce and normally require more time to develop; therefore, it maybe more prudent to use black and white film. Polaroid prints offer instant review to make sure the desired picture is obtained, but are somewhat difficult to reproduce or enlarge. Photographs and videos should be taken from two or more angles, using a scale or ruler to show dimensions. The investigative report should include the negative plus complete technical details relating to the camera used. In cases of personal injury or death, photographs and videos that portray the results of bodily injury should be included only if they contribute to the usefulness of the investigation. Lurid or morbid photographs and videos that serve no useful purpose should not be taken.

Sketches instead of or in conjunction with photographs or videos provide valuable additional information. Insignificant items can be omitted in sketching, providing a more uncluttered view of the scene. Where dimensions are critical but may be distorted by camera perspective, accurate sketches can be more valuable. Sketches should be drawn to scale, preferably on graph paper. They can also be used as a layout to orient numerous photos and measurements.

Carefully handle pieces or parts of equipment and material to make sure this physical evidence is not destroyed. If attaching real evidence to the report is inappropriate, preserve it in a safe place under proper chain of custody-reflecting its location in the report of investigation. Tag each item with a full description of its relationship to the accident. If it is to be sent to a laboratory for analysis, package it with care. Accompany the item(s) with a photo or sketch showing the "as found" location and condition.

Make verbatim copies of relevant operating logs, records, directives, memos, medical reports, police or shore patrol reports, motor vehicle accident reports, and other similar documents. To assure exactness, reproduce by mechanical or photographic means if at all possible. Check copies for clarity and legibility and examine closely for obvious erasures and markovers that might not show up when reproduced.

If the IO observes an item and gains relevant sense impressions (noise, texture, smells, or any other impression not adequately portrayed by photograph, sketch, or map), those impressions should be recorded and included as an enclosure to the report.

WITNESSES

The best method for examining a witness depends on the witness and the complexity of the incident. The most common method used by IOs is the informal interview. Whatever method is employed, however, the witness' statement should be reduced to writing and signed by the witness whenever possible. Sworn statements may be taken unless the appointing order _{directs otherwise.} A sworn statement is considered more desirable than an unsworn statement since it adds to the reliability of the statement and can expedite subsequent action (such as pretrial investigations). The statement should be dated and should properly identify the person making the statement; for example, a service member by full name, grade, service, and duty station; a civilian by full name, title, business or profession, and residence. If necessary, the IO can certify that the statement is an accurate summary, or verbatim transcript, of oral statements made by the witness.

To make sure all relevant information is obtained when examining a witness, the IO should use the appointing order and the requirements in JAGMAN, chapter II, part B, Investigations of Specific Types of Incidents, as a checklist. In addition to covering the full scope of the investigation requirements, witness statements should be as factual in content as possible. Vague Opinions (such as pretty drunk a few beers, and pretty fast) are of little value to the reviewing authority who is trying to evaluate the record. The IO should be able to separate conclusions from observations; therefore, when a witness makes a vague statement, try to pin down the actual facts. For example, instead of accepting the witness' opinion that a person was pretty drunk, the IO should ask the kind of questions that go to supporting that kind of opinion. For example, (1) How long did you observe the person? (2) Describe the clarity of speech? (3) Did you observe him walk? (4) What was the condition of his eyes? (5) What was he drinking? (6) How much was he drinking? (7) Over what period of time?

In many instances, limitations on availability of witnesses will prevent the IO from obtaining a written, signed statement in the previous manner. When this happens, an IO may take testimony or collect evidence in any fair manner he or she chooses. Unavailable witnesses may be examined by mail or by telephone. If the telephone inquiry method is used, the IO should prepare a written memorandum of the call, identifying the person by name, rank armed force, and duty station (if a service member) or by name, address, and occupation (if a civilian). The memorandum should state the substance of the conversation, the time and date it took place, and any rights or warnings provided.