management, writing, and legal resources, which was solely focused on completing the 1185(a) report as soon as possible. At the same time, I decided to transfer responsibility for the 1185(b) reviews from the Criminal Investigative Policy and Oversight Office to the Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS) under the direction of Mr. Donald Mancuso, Assistant Inspector General for Investigations and the Director, DCIS.

The DCIS is the criminal investigative arm of the Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General and has at its disposal the necessary expertise, resources and organizational structure, including over 45 field offices, to best address this important and sensitive mission.

SECTION 1185(A) REPORT

Let me address the current status of our Section 1185 work, beginning with the report required by 1185(a). Our review originally focused on whether current policies, procedures, and training were adequate to ensure thorough, appropriate, and consistent criminal investigations of possible self-inflicted death cases, and whether family questions and concerns following the deaths were properly addressed.

To address the adequacy of existing policies and procedures, we first contacted a wide range of non-DOD law enforcement organizations to identify the standards they follow in conducting death investigations. Based on that information we developed a matrix of processes and steps used in the conduct of death investigations. We then reviewed the policies and procedures of the Military Departments to determine to what extent they addressed the investigative processes and steps included in the matrix.

During our review we also compiled and analyzed the concerns raised in the first 45 requests by family members for individual reviews under Section 1185(b) and found that many of the concerns stated by family members dealt with issues not directly related to the criminal investigation. Family members most often expressed concerns over the use of psychological autopsies, the administrative investigations, casualty notification and assistance, and personal property disposition. Accordingly, we expanded our review to cover these areas. In addition, we received correspondence from a member of Congress expressing concerns that the DOD publicly labeled certain deaths as suicides before an investigation had been completed. Therefore, we also reviewed the DOD and military Department policies and procedures for releasing information to the public.

Our report was issued on January 26, 1996. We found that the MCIOs already had in place adequate policies and procedures and training for death investigations. That is not to say, however, that those policies and procedures are always followed and we did identify some areas for improvement in the MCIOs implementation of policies and procedures. For instance, we recommended that all MCIOs have a comprehensive Family Liaison Program to ensure direct communication with family members until all investigative issues and concerns are reasonably resolved. I'm pleased to note that all three MCIOs now have Family Liaison Programs.

We noted that the CID and NCIS would benefit from an easy-to-use crime scene reference book similar to the AFOSI handbook. This type of crime scene handbook would help ensure proper field implementation of the existing policies and procedures. Therefore, we recommended that CID and NCIS create and issue a crime scene processing guide similar to the AFOSI.

Our report also identified improvements needed in various DOD and Military Department policies and procedures relating to psychological autopsies; administrative investigations; casualty notification and assistance; property disposition; and release of information to the public of particular importance is the issuance of an overall DOD policy for performing psychological autopsies. Psychological autopsies are most often conducted by military mental health professionals and are designed to assess a variety of factors that may have contributed to the death of the member of the Armed Forces. In effect, a psychological autopsy is an attempt to clarify why the death may have occurred. We found significant differences in how the Military Departments performed and used psychological autopsies. For instance, variations existed in when psychological autopsies were performed, who was responsible for performing them, and what qualifications individuals needed to perform them. In addition, DOD did not routinely perform management oversight or quality control reviews of psychological autopsies. Therefore, limited assurance existed that psychological autopsies were adequately performed when needed.

We recommended that the planned issuance of the overall DOD policy for conducting and using the results of psychological autopsies be expedited by the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs). The policy should cover (1) when a psychological autopsy is to be performed, (2) who performs it (including qualifications), (3)

how the results should be used, (4) the establishment of a quality assurance review process, and (5) appropriate management oversight to ensure implementation of policy.

Our review found that many families were confused or concerned with the inconsistent presentation of information from administrative investigations which were also conducted into the death of the member of the Armed Forces. Commanders often order these investigations to determine if the death was in the line of duty and to identify any indicators which could be used in prevention and awareness programs. We recommended that, whenever possible, the MCIO criminal investigation should be conducted so as to provide as much information as possible to the commanders to satisfy administrative needs relating to the death of a member of the Armed Forces. Ideally, the need for separate administrative investigations might thereby be eliminated in many death cases. Where these investigations do occur, we recommended that they be conducted by adequately trained administrative investigating officers who should coordinate with the MCIO and with military judge advocate offices.

Our report discussed misunderstandings which occurred because of weaknesses in the implementation of the existing policies on casualty notification and assistance and disposition of personal property. Unfortunately, when casualty notification and assistance officers do not perform their assigned duties properly, misunderstandings between the family members and the Military Departments can easily occur and are often difficult, if not impossible, to rectify. Therefore, we recommended emphasizing the importance of performing the various duties associated with assisting the next of kin in death cases. We also recommended that family members be given a listing of all personal property items, including those initially deemed to be inappropriate for return, and then allow the family members a reasonable time to request that an item be returned. We recommended that the request by family members should be honored, absent some other compelling factor, such as legal restrictions on the shipment of potentially biohazardous items.

The final issue that our report addressed was release of information to the public. We found instances in which the press releases provided by Military Department Public Affairs Office personnel characterized the deaths as being from "apparent self-inflicted causes which were under investigation." Even though the DOD definition of the term "self-inflicted" includes accidental deaths, the phrase has been interpreted by the media and the public to mean the deaths are being investigated as suicides. We also did not find examples in any regulation to assist public affairs officers in issuing press releases. We recommended that the Defense Information School, where public affairs officers receive training, include instruction on the release of information concerning cause and manner of death in its training courses. We also recommended that the DOD prohibit the use of tentative or speculative conclusions in press releases, or the use of terms such as homicide, suicide, or self-inflicted; require coordination with the cognizant MCIC prior to all releases of information in death cases; and require that family members be notified prior to any public release by DOD of any name or other information concerning noncombat deaths.

While some of the report's recommendations have been implemented, we are still working with the Military Departments, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs) to resolve certain concerns and ensure proper implementation of the remaining recommendations.

On January 31, 1996, I issued DOD Instruction 5505.10, "Investigation of Noncombat Deaths of Active Duty Members of the Armed Forces," which established DOD policy for death investigations. This Instruction, which was effective immediately upon issuance, provides overall policy guidance for the investigation of noncombat deaths of members of the Armed Forces not medically determined to be from natural causes. The Instruction requires that this type of death be investigated as a potential homicide until evidence establishes otherwise and that all MCIŎ agents assigned to these cases be properly trained. Minimum subject matter areas necessary for appropriate death investigation training are also specified. As recommended in the report, the Instruction also requires all MCIÓS to establish a Family Liaison Program and specifies certain key program requirements that must be included.

The Instruction also provided new guidance for other issues such as public release of information and use of information provided by MCIOS for command determinations and programs. Specifically, any public release of information on this type of death will state that the cause and manner of death are undetermined, unless and until an official determination has been made. Advance coordination among the cog

nizant MCIO, the casualty assistance officer, and the servicing judge advocate is also required.

Finally, the Instruction specifies that in these cases the MCIOs will provide military authorities with all information necessary to make command determinations and to support command programs to the maximum extent possible. Proper implementation should help eliminate some of the past confusion between the families and the Military Departments that occurred as a result of conflicting information in the various investigative reports.

SECTION 1185(B) REVIEWS AND REINVESTIGATIONS

Upon receipt of the 1185(b) mission in August 1995, the DCIS immediately reviewed the entire inventory of open requests and formed a new investigative unit called the Special Investigative Review Office whose sole purpose is to review and, if necessary, reinvestigate disputed unattended death investigations that had been conducted by the MCIOS. The unit is comprised of agents originally assigned to the 1185(b) effort, augmented by agents from DCIS possessing the requisite skills and experience needed to investigate these cases. The unit also has available, at my direction, increased legal resources to assist in the review of these cases.

A Review Board was also instituted so that each request would receive a comprehensive examination. The Board consists of the Director and Deputy Director of DCIS, the supervisor of the Special Investigative Review Office, the Chief Medical Examiner of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, representatives from the Of fice of General Counsel and a senior forensic scientist from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Since its inception, the Board has met on numerous occasions to review pending 1185(b) requests and has played an active role in preparing our investigative plans, as well as in reviewing matters of particular concern. Each new request is carefully reviewed by all Board members who then meet with the assigned investigator to discuss specific concerns and to finalize an investigative plan.

Since the transfer of this mission to DCIS just 1 year ago, a total of 23 final reports have been issued, bringing the total number of completed cases to 27. I personally review each report before issuance and maintain close coordination with DCIS on this project. It is also important to note that we are continuing to receive requests under the Act and we now have a total of 28 open matters under our review, four of which have been opened within the last 5 months. In every case, we have been in contact with family members.

Our current inventory of 28 open cases breaks out as follows:

8 are completed and are in the draft report stage

4 are at a stage in which field work is almost completed

6 are at a stage in which field work is in progress

7 are at a stage in which field work has just begun

3 are in the initial analysis stage

These cases often require a huge amount of field work and coordination with the MCIOs in order to locate and review closed investigative files and to identify witnesses and available evidence. Many cases also require coordination with local authorities and even with foreign Governments. During the course of our review our agents have found it necessary to interview witnesses throughout the U.S., Canada, Europe, Asia, and Central and South America. The work frequently involves locating and obtaining forensic testing of evidence for acts that occurred as much as 14 years ago. Of the requests received to date, 15 of the questioned deaths occurred more than 5 years ago and 12 occurred outside of the United States.

For all these reasons, the job is not one that can be completed quickly or with the simple addition of more investigative staff. Nonetheless, we are committed to conducting full and comprehensive reviews of these cases where warranted, as quickly as possible.

To date we found that the majority of investigations were adequately conducted by the MCIOS and that the cause and manner of death in all but one case were properly established. In the one disputed case we found that the manner of death was accidental rather than suicide. This is not to say that we have not found deficiencies in several cases involving the failure to properly collect evidence, obtain forensic testing, interview witnesses and adequately coordinate with family members. Overall, however, we have to date found that the MCIOs do a satisfactory and professional job in these matters.

There is one area, however, where we consistently found deficiencies during our reviews, that is, notification and sharing of information with family members. In nearly every case we reviewed, we found that a lack of adequate sensitivity to the needs of family members contributed to the degree of their skepticism about the outcome of the military's investigations. In one case, for example, family members were

told three differing stories as to the cause of death. In many cases, the personal possessions of deceased members of the Armed Forces were misplaced or destroyed despite the importance of these items to surviving family members. In one such case, the administrative investigating officer removed and destroyed an exposed roll of film from a camera rather than forward it to the family. His stated rationale was that he wanted to spare the family any embarrassment that may have resulted from the unknown contents of the film. His actions, instead, generated further suspicion that the Military Department was somehow seeking to conceal information that may have been relevant to the cause of the soldier's death.

JURISDICTIONAL CONCERNS

There is one other issue that the Subcommittee should be aware of in reviewing these investigations. In our work under both Section 1185(a) and 1185(b), we have repeatedly found the MCIOS are frequently at a severe disadvantage in investigating deaths of members of the Armed Forces when the deaths occur on non-Federal property. In these cases, given jurisdictional limitations, the MCIOs are frequently relegated to the position of merely "assisting" local authorities in the investigation. Of the 55 requests we have received to date, 20 fall into this area.

In several cases completed to date we found deficiencies in the investigative procedures employed by the local authorities but no legal basis for the MCIOS to have assumed jurisdiction. These deficiencies include such things as the destruction of evidence, failure to secure the crime scene, failure to conduct forensic testing, and a failure to interview key witnesses. Unfortunately, the actions or inactions of local authorities are frequently viewed by family members as a failure by the military investigative offices. Simply put, the fact that an individual may have died while on active military duty does not in itself provide the MCIOs with the jurisdiction to conduct an independent investigation should the death occur on non-Federal property.

CONCLUSION

In closing, I want to again reiterate our understanding of the importance and sensitivity of these investigations. I sincerely regret that delays in the earlier handling of this issue and these cases have contributed to the already overwhelming burden borne by the families of men and women who died while in the service of their country. Please be assured that we have identified the early problems, hopefully fixed them, and are committed to completing all of these cases as quickly and as professionally as possible, while always ensuring that each case receives the close attention it deserves. Thank you.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. With that, may I then call upon Brigadier General Daniel A. Doherty, commanding general, Criminal Investigation Command.

STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. DANIEL A. DOHERTY, USA, COMMANDING GENERAL, U.S. ARMY CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION COMMAND

General DOHERTY. Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today and provide testimony for the panel.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. General, maybe you could try the other microphone. Perhaps it is working.

General DOHERTY. Is that better, sir?

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Yes.

General DOHERTY. That is a relief. I thought my hearing was going. [Laughter.]

Sir, as you mentioned, I am the commander of Army Criminal Investigation Command known as Army CID. Every one of our investigators is a soldier, and all in the chain of command within CID are soldiers. They are well-trained, dedicated, professional, and they are committed to providing a professional product in the form of investigating crime.

They are trained in death investigations, and in fact death investigation training is part of their core training they receive at the Military Police School once they are selected to come into CID.

Sir, in the Army, any soldier's death and every soldiers' death is a profound tragedy to the entire Army community. Army CID is tasked to investigate all deaths that occur on Army installations, and we also are charged to assist and work with Federal and locaĺ law enforcement agencies who are investigating deaths of soldiers that occur off of Army installations.

We work very closely with them, we cooperate with them, we provide any assistance that we can. As soon as we are informed of a soldier's death off the installation, we get into immediate contact with the investigating agency, and again provide any assistance we can to conduct a collateral investigation, to include interviews with the soldier's friends, unit members, and we offer forensic assist

ance.

Sir, in the investigation of deaths we assume that every death is a homicide, and we investigate it as a homicide. We do that to ensure that all investigative protocols are properly followed.

In the event indications are that it was a possible self-inflicted wound, then we categorize the investigation as an undetermined death, and the investigation carries that categorization through the completion of that investigation. It is only after evaluation of all evidence and information that we have collected through our investigation that, at the end of that investigation, we will make a determination to the best of our ability as to whether the death was a result of a homicide, if it was an accidental death, or if it was a suicide.

Sir, we empathize with the families' loss of a loved one. Not only do we feel responsible and committed to provide the best professional products in a criminal investigation, but we also feel committed to providing the families all of the information possible concerning the circumstances surrounding the death of their loved one, so we have what we call casualty liaison officers. These are investigators, soldiers, senior investigators who are in charge of our units in the field and who have experience in death investigations, and they are established as casualty liaison officers.

These are investigators with whom the family can have direct contact, ask any questions that they are concerned about, and our casualty liaison officers serving as their point of contact will provide them all the information possible regarding the status of the investigation.

Sir, I would just like to make two points. One is that our agents, investigators, are well-trained. They are soldiers, very dedicated and committed to providing a professional product, and we are in the business of determining whether or not a crime has been committed.

Second, all of us care very deeply about it, because we are talking about a fellow soldier who has been lost.

Sir, I have a written statement that I request be entered in the record.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Without objection. Thank you, sir. General, thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of General Doherty follows:]