Article 31 advisements are generally not required during privileged safety investigations focused solely on accident prevention, but the privilege is narrow and easily lost. Safety investigations conducted under strict privilege protecting statements for accident prevention purposes only don’t trigger Article 31. However, any dual-purpose investigation potentially supporting disciplinary action requires warnings.
The critical distinction involves investigation scope and potential use. Pure safety boards seeking systemic improvements without individual accountability operate outside Article 31. But investigations that could identify misconduct, support administrative actions, or parallel criminal investigations require compliance. Many commands improperly blend safety and disciplinary investigations, destroying privilege.
Warning indicators include questions about regulatory compliance, individual fault, or circumstances suggesting misconduct rather than system failures. Investigators asking “why didn’t you follow procedure” versus “what procedural improvements would prevent recurrence” illustrates the distinction. Any potential for disciplinary use mandates Article 31 compliance.
Service members should approach safety investigations cautiously, clarifying purpose and potential statement use. Refusing to participate in ambiguous investigations protects against inadvertent self-incrimination. Defense counsel challenge statements from mixed-purpose investigations lacking warnings. The narrow safety privilege requires strict compliance – any disciplinary taint requires Article 31 protections.