No, statements obtained in violation of Article 31 cannot be used for any adverse administrative action against service members. This prohibition extends beyond criminal proceedings to encompass administrative separations, Article 15 proceedings, security clearance determinations, evaluation downgrades, and any other punitive or adverse administrative measures. Military courts consistently hold that Article 31’s exclusionary rule prevents any governmental use of improperly obtained statements, recognizing that allowing administrative use would eviscerate the right’s protective purpose.
The broad prohibition reflects understanding that administrative consequences can be as career-ending as criminal convictions. An other-than-honorable discharge based on unlawfully obtained statements causes similar harm to a court-martial conviction. Security clearance revocations effectively end many military careers. Negative evaluations prevent promotions and force separations. Allowing commands to use Article 31-violating statements for these purposes would incentivize violations by providing alternative paths to remove service members.
Practical enforcement requires vigilance as commands sometimes attempt end-runs around exclusion by claiming independent evidence supports administrative action. However, if decision-makers were exposed to tainted statements, proving independent basis becomes difficult. Defense counsel must aggressively investigate whether officials making adverse decisions had access to suppressed statements. Documentation showing knowledge of statement content can invalidate administrative actions even if officials claim other reasons.
Remedies for improper administrative use include enjoining adverse actions, overturning completed separations, and restoring benefits or rank lost through tainted proceedings. Boards for correction of military records can remedy past violations. Inspector general complaints might address systemic command violations. The comprehensive prohibition ensures Article 31 rights have meaningful effect by preventing any governmental benefit from violations. Service members should challenge any adverse action potentially influenced by improperly obtained statements, regardless of proceeding formality.