Fires Center of Excellence and Fort Sill
The Fort Sill IG teaches and trains, provides assistance as requested, and conducts inspections and investigations as directed by the Commanding General for and throughout the United States Army Fires Center of Excellence and Fort Sill to assist commanders in achieving disciplined and combat-ready units and to maintain operational effectiveness of the command.
Monday-Friday 0900 to 1700
Before and after duty hours and on weekends by appointment only. Appointments are recommended, but not required for normal duty hours. The Inspector General is located in building 1613.
During normal duty hours. 24 hour service voice mail; leave a message and we will return your call on the next duty day.
First come, first served. Appointments have priority.
USAFCOEFS, ATTN: ATZR-I
Fort Sill, OK 73503-5100
Inspector General - 442-3109
Deputy Inspector General - 442-3109
NCOIC - 442-3224
Inspections Branch - 442-3224
Assistance Investigations Branch - 442-6007
Be sure you have a problem, not just a peeve.
(Are the cooks turning out lousy chow or was it just one bad meal?)
Give your chain of command a chance to solve the problem
(Many problems must be addressed to the chain of command for resolution anyway.)
If IG assistance is needed, contact your local IG first.
(IGs at higher command will normally refer the case to the local IG for action.)
Be honest and don't provide misleading information.
(IGs will discover the truth quickly in most cases and there are penalties for knowinlgy providing false information.)
Keep in mind that IGs are not policy makers.
(If a policy is flawed you can submit purpose changes on a DA form 2028)
Keep in mind that IGs can only recommend, not order a resolution.
(Only Commanders can order; the role of the IG is to advise the Commander.)
Remember IGs can only resolve a case on the basis of fact.
(Your claim that a supervisor has violated the rules doesn't make it fact; a claim must be supported with evidence.)
Don't expect instant action on your request... Be patient.
(Investigations take time, and IGs tend to have heavy workloads.)
Be prepared to take "NO" for the answer.
(In any case "Yes" or "No", the IG will explain why.)
DA Form 1559
Inspectors General use DA Form 1559, Inspector General Action Request, to record complaints and Inspector General requests for information and assistance. This form acts as the base-control document, assists in documenting Inspector General workload, and assists in identifying trends and systemic issues. Also, the form allows the Inspector General to provide the Commanding General (CG) with information to improve the command. A DA Form 1559 must be completed for every complaint, request for information, or request for Inspector General assistance.
The French army provided the first examples of unit inspectors in Western culture. In 1668, an inspector general of infantry and an inspector general of cavalry were appointed. They reviewed the troops and reported their status to the king. French King Louis XIV expanded the system to include geographical inspectors. They examined everything within their sphere of influence. Soon, military inspection became an essential aspect of all modern armies.
1775 - 1783
The U.S. Army Inspector General System was born during the Revolutionary War. The Continental Army, when formed in 1775, was a disorganized array of militia from different states, with no uniformity in organizations, procedures, drills, appearance or equipment. Their leadership was not comparable to the good, solid officer leadership of the British army, and General George Washington, the army commander, was not satisfied with the training and readiness of his diversified forces.
By the time of the American Revolution, the appointment of inspectors, at least in functional areas, was an established routine in European armies. The tactics of the day (volley fire and massed bayonet charges) required stern discipline and extensive drill and training. It followed that commanders needed a close look at the units and their readiness.
On Oct. 29, 1777, Washington met with 14 general officers and decided among other things that an inspector general for the army was desirable. This general would superintend the training of the entire army in order to ensure troop proficiency and common tactics. He would be the commander's agent to ensure tactical efficiency of the troops, that of tactical competence. The duties envisioned were those of a "drill master general" or a "muster-master general."
At the same time, the Continental Congress recognized the need for an inspector general to provide it with information concerning a significant public investment. Therefore, the congress understandably wanted an agent in the Army to help in accountability for the military investments. It also wanted assurances the military would remain subordinate to its authority. This parallel IG requirement created tension between the military and the civilian authorities. Washington's preference for an inspector answerable only to the army chain of command prevailed, and subsequently inspectors general were ordered to report to the commander in chief. However, the tension created by a dual requirement for information continues even today.
In 1777, Congress approved the new position of the inspector general of the army. The congressional resolution directed that the inspector general would:
• Review the troops
• See that officers and soldiers were instructed in exercise maneuvers established by the board of war
• Ensure that discipline was strictly observed
• Ensure that officers commanded properly and treated soldiers with justice
The first inspector general of the army was Maj. Gen. Thomas Conway. Conway, an Irish soldier of fortune, resigned shortly after his appointment because he couldn't get along with anyone in the Continental army, to include Washington.
The first effective U.S. Army inspector general was Baron Frederick William Augustus Von Steuben. Von Steuben was a former captain in the Prussian army. He was recruited for the Continental army in Paris by Benjamin Franklin in 1777. Franklin recognized that quality of von Steuben but was concerned that Congress wouldn't accept only a captain for such a position of responsibility. So Franklin "doctored" von Steuben's resume in order to present him as a former lieutenant general, a grade he knew would be acceptable to Congress.
Von Steuben was accepted as the inspector general of the army on a trial basis by Washington. He reported to duty at Valley Forge in February 1778. He spoke no English but learned quickly and impressed everyone with his hard work to improve the training, drills, discipline, and organization of the Continental army.
In May 1778, he was officially appointed inspector general of the army with the rank and pay of major general. Congress also appointed two inspectors general under Von Steuben and provided the first inspector general organization.
Many of the Continental army's regimental colonels resented bitterly the efforts of the inspector general, whose duties as outlined by Congress included "to report all abuses, neglect and deficiencies to the Commander in Chief." It was von Steuben's character, tact and genius that overcame a great deal of this resistance and as such, set the precedent for the manner and behavior for future inspector generals. Von Steuben is recognized as the father of the inspector general system, and significantly influenced our Army's ability to fight and win.
1783 - 1900
The size and influence of the IG within the Army rose and fell, at times dramatically, during the 18th and 19th centuries. This was caused by Army strength fluctuations, changing personalities, and philosophical approaches to doing business by the senior Army policymakers of that era. During the 1790s the inspector general was second in command of the Army. For a period after 1800, those duties were relegated to the Department of the Adjutant General and there were several times the position of IG was eliminated altogether.
The Act of Mar. 3, 1813, which reorganized the staff of the Army, established the inspector general's department though it would not be until 1878 that the department became a formal part of the Army organization. In addition to the general, the act provided for eight inspectors general and many assistant inspectors general. These inspectors general did tasks that were very inconsistent with those of a present-day IG. This mix of duties was caused by not having a centrally developed doctrine that clearly defined the role of the IG.
How commanders used the IG improved greatly following the Civil War, when the War Department published an order defining the duties of the inspector general. In 1876, the secretary of war directed the inspector general of the Army to report to the general of the Army on all subjects pertaining to military control and discipline and all "field IGs" to report directly to the unit commanding general (CG). This directive placed IGs under the local CG's control for all matters. An inspector general was no longer a "spy" from a higher headquarters. This relationship continues today.
1900 - 1949
The greatest hindrance to IGs in inspecting the "old" Army was the dispersion of its force across the globe. After 1898, Army troops were scattered around the world, occupying Caribbean Islands and trying to suppress the growing rebellion in the Philippines. By 1900, IGs were inspecting all regiments deploying to the Philippine Insurrection and establishing a systematic inspectorate in the islands. The IG duty to inspect units deploying for combat overseas resurfaced during World Wars I and II, the Korean War, Vietnam, Grenada, and Operation Desert Shield/Storm.
From after World War I unit 1939, the number of IGs in the Army changed very little and IG duties remained stable. By 1940, all subordinate commanders down to and including divisions were allocated an inspector general under their direct control to conduct inspections and investigations as needed within their respective commands. By 1945, there were about 3,000 IGs serving with the Army around the world.
The inspector general mission grew in importance and scope during World War II and this trend continued into the postwar Army. Of particular note was the emergence of the assistance function as we know it today. The rapid draw-down of the Army from about 9 million in 1945 to a few hundred thousand in 1946, caused the inspector general to respond to thousands of requests for help from soldiers being released from the Army (many because they weren't being released quickly enough).
1950 - 1959
The statutory basis for the current IG system comes from the 1950 Army Reorganization Act. This reorganization replaced the IG department with the office of the inspector general of the Army (OTIG). The inspector general (TIG) was responsible to the Army chief of staff and the secretary of the Army. The reorganization charged TIG to inquire into and report upon the discipline, efficiency, and economy of the Army. Specifically, IGs were to focus their effort on training and combat readiness.
In 1952, OTIG initiated an orientation course for officers selected to be IGs. Prior to this there was no specific provision for the formal instruction of IGs, although the old inspector general’s department had maintained and distributed instructional material to each IG in the form of inspection and investigation guides, handbooks, and other procedural material.
A legal case in 1953 resulted in the classification of IG data as having restricted access and use. inspector general investigations and reports were declared "privileged" as a matter of law. As such, they could not be used as evidence in judicial or other proceedings, except as specifically authorized by the authority ordering the investigation or higher authority.
The qualifications for IGs were first formally codified in 1957. Army regulation (AR) 614-100 stated only the highest caliber of Army officers should be detailed as IGs and should meet the following minimum qualifications:
• Mature with broad military experience
• Have not previously completed a normal three year tour as an IG
• Moral and personal traits which are necessary for a position of dignity and prestige
The mission to conduct the indoctrination course for all officers newly detailed as IGs was transferred from the OTIG inspection division to a newly established field services division on Nov. 5, 1956. The course, for CONUS based officer IGs only, was increased to three weeks (one week inspections, one week investigations and one week procurement), averaged 53 students a course, and was taught four times a year. The frequency of presentation increased to six by FY 58 and expanded to allow selected civilian employees and NCOs assigned to IG offices to attend. Also in FY 58, a modified, two week IG orientation course began to be taught in selected overseas areas.
1960 - 1990
In May 1956, the secretary of the Army directed the Army to assume responsibility for technical proficiency inspections (TPI) of Army atomic organizations worldwide. General Order #40, dated Aug. 24, 1956, placed these inspections under the jurisdiction of the IG. The March 1960 revised AR 20-1 for the first time provided policy concerning IG technical proficiency inspections.
IG Technical Bulletin #4, published in 1960, for the first time standardized the approved method and procedures for IGs to receive and process Inspector General Action Requests (IGAR). In 1962, an OTIG investigation looked into allegations of inefficiencies during the call up of reserve and national guard units during the Berlin buildup.
The US Army IG philosophy began to be shared with allies when the OTIG presented its standard course of instruction to groups composed entirely of foreign officers. In FY 61, instruction was presented to Republic of Korea army officers in Seoul, Korea, and to Nationalist Chinese army officers in Taipei, Formosa.
The early 1980s heralded a significant change in the way IGs did inspections. Traditionally, general inspections had focused primarily on evaluating a unit's compliance to regulations. However, purely compliance inspections tended to address symptoms rather than causes and made the assumption that policy guidance and directives were correct.
The new emphasis for IGs was on a compliance-systemic inspection methodology. This focused attention on causes rather than symptoms, allowed policy errors or omissions to be addressed for resolution, traced unit problems to Army problems, emphasized correction at the proper level, and minimized the need for onetime unit inspection preparation. Follow-up inspections were also stressed, primarily to verify that corrective action was carried out and to ensure the corrections truly solved the problems.
In 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Reorganization Act reversed the IG portion of the 1950 Army Reorganization Act in that TIG became responsible to the secretary of the Army and responsive to the chief of staff, Army. TIG's other responsibilities remained the same.
Also during the 1980's, the IG system became automated. Automation gave inspectors general the tool to better assimilate all available IG information, as well as audit reports written by outside agencies (e.g., Defense Audit Service, General Accounting Office (GAO). The first effort was called the Inspector General Management Information Resource System (IGARS). IGMIRS was later replaced by the Inspector General Worldwide Network (IGNET).
This paper was extracted and summarized from the following references:
The Inspectors General of the United States Army 1777 – 1903
David A. Clary and Joseph W. A. Whitehorne
US Government Printing Office
Washington, DC, 1987
IG in Wartime
From the US Army Inspector General Agency
USAIGA War Plan, dtd 5 Jul 1989
The Army Almanac
United States Government Printing Office, 1950
OTIG Historical Summaries for various years from 1950 – 1989
IGs - Old and New: A Matter of Misunderstood Roles
LTC Robert L. Maginnis
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Any non-support issue should be brought to the attention of your spouse's commander. AR 608-99 requires company commanders to "personally review each inquiry concerning a soldier assigned to his or her command" and to respond within 14 days. If you have already contacted your spouse's commander and are not satisfied with the result, contact the IG office.
IG inspection teams rarely use standard checklists. The team will tailor each inspection to the inspected agency and to the intent of the commander. You should be contacted by a member of the team before the inspection to coordinate details and get an idea of the focus of the particular inspection. However, when an IG comes to inspect your area, keep in mind that he or she can ask questions about any subject and can look into areas not specified in the inspection notification. Familiarize yourself with the rules and regulations regarding your job or activity and do your best to comply and you will do well on your inspection. Remember, the purpose of an IG inspection is to find trends and solutions, not to punish individuals for mistakes or specific failures.
A commander can refer a subordinate for a mental health examination (MHE) any time he or she believes the subordinate has a problem that needs to be addressed. An MHE is also required before conducting UCMJ action on a subordinate in many cases. If you are referred for an MHE, make sure your commander notifies you in writing that you are being referred, and your chain of command gives you two working days to contact an attorney, chaplain, inspector general, or anyone else you would like to contact before the evaluation. If you feel the proper procedures have not been followed, bring the issue up with your chain of command. If they cannot satisfy your concerns, call the IG.
Extra duty (mopping floors, shoveling snow, etc) and restriction are punishments that the commander can impose once a soldier is found guilty under UCMJ proceedings. It cannot be imposed before such proceedings are concluded. However, a commander has several corrective administrative options. Corrective training can be imposed without UCMJ proceedings. Corrective training can occur after normal duty hours, but must be directly related to the offense (ie: requiring a soldier to sign in early every day after being late for formation) and must be oriented toward correcting a deficiency. Corrective training should be continued only until the deficiency is corrected. Deficiencies successfully corrected will not be noted in a soldier’s official records. Commanders can also initiate flags or bars to reenlistment, remove a soldier from a promotion list, or deny privileges without conducting UCMJ actions.
It is always better for the IG if we can speak directly to the one with the problem. Some people are very reluctant to come forward for fear of reprisal. A third party can relate a concern to the IG and we will still work to resolve it, but the IG is limited in the responses back to third parties of corrective actions taken. Individuals may visit the IG and request anonymity, and the IG will honor this request. AR 20-1 has some rules about anonymity: “When a person requests anonymity, the IG will take more extensive measures to protect the person’s identity. The person’s name will not be used as a file identifier or as a means to retrieve a file. The request for anonymity will be prominently stated, and the use of the person’s name will be minimized in any file or record created by the IG. This is most easily done by referring to the person as “complainant,” “witness,” or similar title instead of by name.”
You do not have to tell your supervisor why you want to see the IG. You must be properly excused from duty, if you are trying to see the IG during your duty hours; or, you can be in an off-duty status. The IG will encourage the soldier or civilian employee to first discuss complaints, allegations, or requests for assistance with the commander, chain of command, or supervisor. If a complainant does not wish to do so, the IG will accept the complaint unless specific redress procedures are available, such as the NCOER/OER appeals process or the report of survey system. Civilian employees will be directed to the appropriate avenue of redress, and IG involvement will be limited to ensuring due process is received.
Everyone has the right to present complaints, grievances, or requests for assistance to the Inspector General (IG). These may include what individuals reasonably believe is evidence of fraud, waste, and abuse. Before visiting the IG, you should consider whether your concerns can be addressed more quickly and simply by referring them to your chain of command/immediate supervisor. You do not have to present your concerns to your chain of command/immediate supervisor before visiting the IG. However, you must obtain permission to be absent from your duties if you wish to visit the IG during your duty hours. You do not have to tell anyone why you want to speak with an IG.
Reprisal is a very serious matter. Reprisal can take place just by threatening to take an unfavorable action, or by threatening to withhold a favorable action. AR 20-1 has an extensive discussion on reprisal (para 1-11b).
Harassment is a very subjective complaint. Army leadership doctrine requires that all leaders treat subordinates with dignity, respect, fairness and consistency (AR 600-100, Army Leadership, para 2-1 k, dated 8 Mar 07). In many cases, harassment is a failure to adequately or accurately communicate from one party to another. When you truly feel that you are not being treated fairly, you should continue to use the chain of command and attempt to make your situation known to the next level supervisor. If you are uncomfortable or unable to take this step, it may be time for you to visit or call the IG.