The answer depends almost entirely on one thing: whether the communications were privileged when they were made. A Sexual Assault Response Coordinator, or SARC, occupies a confidentiality role created to encourage reporting, and communications made to a SARC acting as a victim advocate are generally protected by the victim advocate privilege in Military Rule of Evidence 514. Administrative separation boards apply relaxed evidentiary standards in most respects, but they do not get to ignore that privilege. So the better question is not whether a board could find such interviews useful, but whether the privilege keeps them out, and who holds the power to assert or waive it.
What a SARC is and what role triggers protection
A SARC is the single point of contact who coordinates the response when a service member reports a sexual assault, and SARCs are authorized to perform victim advocate duties. The confidentiality that attaches to a SARC’s communications flows from that victim advocate function. Communications between a victim and a SARC or victim advocate are protected under MRE 514, and SARCs are specifically trained in the confidentiality requirements that surround restricted reporting and that privilege.
The phrase “in-camera interviews conducted by SARC” is somewhat imprecise, because the SARC is a confidential resource rather than a tribunal that conducts hearings. What the question most likely refers to is the private, confidential intake or support communications a victim has with a SARC. Whether the content of those communications can later surface in an administrative separation board is governed by privilege law, not by the board’s general freedom to consider informal evidence.
MRE 514 and the victim advocate privilege
MRE 514 establishes a privilege protecting confidential communications between an alleged victim and a victim advocate or SARC made for the purpose of facilitating advice or support concerning the victim’s experience. The privilege belongs to the victim. That ownership is the central fact. A SARC or victim advocate may, and ordinarily must, refuse to disclose the protected communications on the victim’s behalf. The privilege is designed to protect those communications from disclosure across stages of a proceeding, and it is not the command’s or the government’s to waive.
Where the privilege applies and the victim has not waived it, the protected communications are not a proper source of evidence. That is true even in a forum with relaxed evidence rules, because privilege is a separate question from reliability or formality. A board does not gain access to privileged material simply because it can otherwise consider hearsay or unauthenticated documents.
How administrative separation boards treat evidence
Administrative separation boards, including officer boards of inquiry, are not bound by the Military Rules of Evidence the way a court-martial is. They can consider evidence that would be inadmissible at trial, such as unauthenticated documents or hearsay, and they apply a more relaxed standard overall. This is why someone might assume a SARC’s notes or statements would simply come in.
But the relaxation of the rules has an important exception. Recognized privileges generally continue to apply in administrative proceedings. The board’s freedom to consider informal evidence is about formality and authentication, not about overriding a confidentiality protection that exists to serve a strong policy of encouraging victims to seek support. So a privilege like MRE 514 continues to shield the protected communications even though the board is otherwise unconstrained by the formal evidence rules.
Restricted versus unrestricted reporting
Whether the communications were made under a restricted or unrestricted report also affects the picture. Under restricted reporting, a victim can receive support and services confidentially without triggering an investigation or command notification, and the SARC and victim advocate are barred from disclosing the confidential communications to law enforcement or command except as permitted under the applicable privilege. That confidentiality structure reinforces the conclusion that the substance of a restricted report is not available to feed an administrative separation board.
Unrestricted reporting opens an investigation and brings in command and law enforcement, but it does not automatically strip the victim advocate privilege from the confidential support communications themselves. The investigative facts gathered through the unrestricted channel may be available through other evidence. The privileged communications between the victim and the SARC are a different category and remain protected unless the privilege is waived or an exception applies.
The practical takeaway
For a respondent or victim involved in an administrative separation proceeding, the analysis should run in this order. First, identify whether the material at issue is a confidential communication to a SARC or victim advocate, as opposed to independent investigative evidence. Second, determine whether the victim, who holds the privilege, has waived it or whether a recognized exception applies. If the material is privileged and unwaived, it should not be admitted, and the relaxed nature of board procedure does not change that. If the material is not privileged, or the privilege has been waived, the board’s relaxed standards may well allow it in.
The core principle is straightforward even if its application can be fact-intensive. Administrative boards are generous about the form of evidence but are not free to disregard the MRE 514 victim advocate privilege. Confidential SARC communications are presumptively protected, the victim controls that protection, and admissibility turns on privilege analysis rather than on the board’s general latitude.
Disclaimer
This article is provided strictly for general educational and informational purposes. It is intended to explain how the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the Rules for Courts-Martial, the Military Rules of Evidence, and related military administrative processes work as a matter of public legal education. It does not constitute legal advice, a legal opinion, or a recommendation about any particular case, and it is not a substitute for advice from a qualified military defense attorney who can evaluate the specific facts and command, service, and jurisdictional circumstances involved.
Reading this article, or contacting any website on which it appears, does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and any law firm, attorney, or author. Every court-martial, nonjudicial punishment action, administrative separation, and security-clearance matter turns on its own facts, the charged articles, the convening authority, the service branch, and the evidence, and outcomes vary widely from one case to another.
Military law also changes over time. The Military Justice Act of 2016 (effective January 1, 2019) and subsequent National Defense Authorization Acts renumbered and rewrote many punitive articles, revised the Article 32 preliminary hearing, and altered sentencing, clemency, and appellate procedures. Statutes, regulations, executive orders, the Manual for Courts-Martial, and decisions of the service Courts of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces may have been amended, superseded, or reinterpreted after this article was written, and article numbers or procedures cited here may have changed.
For these reasons, no reader should act or decline to act based on this content without first consulting a licensed attorney experienced in military justice about their own situation. The author and publisher make no warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or current applicability of the information provided, and disclaim any liability for any action taken or not taken in reliance on it. If you are facing investigation, charges, or an adverse administrative action, time limits may apply, and you should seek qualified counsel promptly.