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 Office 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 committed to providing a professional product in the *ing crime.

form

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 local 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:]

PREPARED STATEMENT BY BRIG. GEN. DANIEL A. DOHERTY, USA

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss death investigations by the United States Army Criminal Investigation Command.

The United States Army Criminal Investigation Command is a major Army command consisting of 721 highly trained military agents stationed worldwide. All agents come under the command of the Commander, United States Army Criminal Investigation Command. As Commander of the United States Criminal Investigation Command, I am authorized to communicate directly with the Secretary of the Army, the Army General Counsel, the Department of Defense Inspector General, the Department of the Army Inspector Generai, and all federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.

The mission of the United States Army Criminal Investigation Command is to investigate all Army related felonies (offenses punishable by death or confinement for more than 1 year). An Army interest exists when (1) the crime is committed on a military installation or facility; (2) there is a reasonable basis to believe the suspect may be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice or the suspect may be a Department of Defense employee who has committed an offense in connection with his or her duties; (3) the Army is the victim of the crime; or (4) there is a need to protect personnel, property, or activities on Army installations from criminal conduct on military installations that has a direct adverse effect on the Army's ability to accomplish its mission. Included within this mission is the responsibility for investigating all noncombat deaths to the extent necessary to determine whether criminal activity is involved.

To perform this mission, the United States Army Criminal Investigation Command is extremely careful in selecting its agents. To become an enlisted agent, a soldier must be 21 years of age, have a minimum of 2 years military service, have no military or civilian convictions except minor traffic offenses, have 6 months experience as a military policeman or 1 year of experience as a civilian police officer, and have 2 years of college (a minimum of 60 credit hours). An enlisted agent may apply to become a warrant officer agent after serving 2 years as an enlisted agent with the United States Army Criminal Investigation Command, demonstrating potential for performing at a higher grade, and obtaining a baccalaureate degree.

Upon selection as an enlisted agent, the soldier attends a demanding 15-week course at the United States Army Military Police School at Fort McClellan, Alabama. This is the longest basic training course of any of the military criminal investigative organizations. The faculty has an average of 18 years of experience in law enforcement with an average education level of 16 years. During this schooling, the prospective agents receive instruction in criminal law, crime-scene processing, testimonial and physical evidence collection, investigative procedures for major crimes, and investigative report writing. Additionally, the school has constructed several mock crime scenes, including one of a death scene. The final exercise of the course involves processing a death scene. Each student must successfully complete this practical exercise prior to graduation. Upon graduation our agents are among the best trained in the world, yet new agents must still complete a 1 year period of apprenticeship receiving additional training and close supervision by experienced agents.

Completing this 15-week course does not end our agents' formal training. Additional training includes investment training that teaches experienced agents advanced skills. For instance, two agents are currently enrolled in George Washington University obtaining master's degrees in forensic science. Additionally, agents participate in sustainment training designed to maintain individual proficiency. For example agents attend local training opportunities offered by state law enforcement agencies or training conducted by mobile training teams from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. We also send agents each year to courses sponsored by Scotland Yard and the Federal Bureau of Investigation's National Academy.

During the investigation of a death case our agents use all this training and their experience to ensure that the proper determination is made as to the manner of the death. Initially, all death cases are conducted as though the death was a homicide. This ensures that the investigating agent treats the area where the death occurred as a crime scene. This in turn results in the agent safeguarding the scene; recording the scene in notes, sketches, and photographs; searching the scene for evidence; processing, collecting, and preserving the evidence that is found; and interviewing all appropriate witnesses. During this investigation, the agent also coordinates with the pathologist, line-of-duty administrative investigator, the casualty liaison officer, and the nearest intelligence agency to determine if the victim had access to classified information and if so to determine if any material is missing.

Based upon an evaluation of all available information and evidence gathered during this process, the supervisory agent and the case agent will make a careful determination as to the manner of death. Additionally, throughout the investigation, the agent's team chief, senior agent-in-charge, operations officer at the district level, and the forensic coordinators at higher headquarters review the progress of the investigation and the final report. A team chief is normally a warrant officer with seasoned investigative experience. The senior agent-in-charge is normally a chief warrant officer with over 5 years of investigative experience. Once the review is completed by these two experienced supervisors, the final report is forwarded to the operations officer at the district office responsible for the area where the death occurred. The operations officer there again reviews the final report. This operations officer is a senior warrant officer with over 10 years investigative experience. Upon completion of this review, the final report is forwarded to the group headquarters. Here the report is reviewed by a forensic specialist who has a master's degree in forensic science from George Washington University and who has completed a fellowship in forensic medicine at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. An agent at United States Army Criminal Investigation Command Headquarters next reviews the final report. This agent also has a master's degree in forensic science. The final report is also reviewed by a panel of forensic pathologists assigned to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. If during any of these quality assurance reviews, the reviewing official believes that additional information should be obtained, he or she can return the case file for more investigation.

The investigation as to the manner of the death is not the only involvement by the United States Army Criminal Investigation Command. In every death case, a Casualty Liaison Officer is appointed. This knowledgeable person is an agent who is responsible for answering the questions of the victim's next-of-kin to the fullest extent possible without impeding or endangering the successful completion of the investigation. The responsibilities of our Casualty Liaison Officer continue until all issues and concerns are reasonably resolved. In addition, the deceased soldier's commander will also appoint a Casualty Assistance Officer. The dedicated role of this soldier is to assist the next-of-kin during the period immediately following the death, eliminate delays in settling claims and paying survivor benefits, and assist the next-of-kin with other personnel related concerns. Our Casualty Liaison Officer briefs the Casualty Assistance Officer on significant developments during the investigation to provide the most accurate and current information to the family.

Closely related to the information given to the next-of-kin by the Casualty Liaison Officer is the release of the report of the investigation to the family. All members of the public can request copies of records maintained by the United States Army Criminal Investigation Command. The release of these records is controlled by the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, as amended, and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, as amended. A request by family members of a suicide victim is treated expeditiously and thus does not fall within the normal processing procedures for requests under these statutes. Additionally, the United States Army Criminal Investigation Command established a toll-free number specifically to facilitate communications with family members.

One issue that is closely related to our investigation of a self-inflicted death is the lack of jurisdiction to investigate certain deaths. Deaths that occur off a military installation fall within the primary jurisdiction of local civilian law enforcement authorities. Although the U.S. Army has an interest in the death, we have no authority to direct how such off-post investigations are conducted. However, our agents establish and maintain a close working relationship with local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies within their area of operations. Furthermore, I am a member of the International Association of the Chiefs of Police and I am a member of their policy committee. These relationships assist the United States Army Criminal Investigation Command in preparing a collateral report based upon information obtained from the civilian agency that conducted the investigation. Our report will include a copy of the civilian agency's completed written report.

As the committee is aware, the Department of Defense Inspector General conducted a detailed investigation into the areas discussed above. The Inspector General reported that the United States Army Criminal Investigation Command has effective procedures, policies and training in place for the conduct of a death investigation. These findings are further supported by the fact that the Department of Defense Inspector General independently reviewed and issued a report on 10 suicide investigations conducted by the United States Army Criminal Investigation Command. The Inspector General agreed with our findings in 9 of the 10 cases. In the remaining case three different professional medical examiners from Fort Bragg, the State of North Carolina, and the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, agreed upon a finding of suicide. The Department of Defense Inspector General opined that the