Article 31 requires advisement before written questionnaires or surveys seeking information about suspected misconduct from specific individuals. Mass surveys for statistical purposes without individual suspicion don’t trigger Article 31, but targeted questionnaires to suspected wrongdoers absolutely require warnings. The medium doesn’t matter – written interrogation receives identical protection as verbal questioning.
Courts examine whether questionnaires could elicit incriminating responses about suspected offenses. Command climate surveys asking about general misconduct observations differ from individual questionnaires about specific incidents. Mandatory completion requirements heighten coercion concerns. Anonymous surveys may avoid Article 31, but identification methods often exist destroying true anonymity.
Common violations occur with “administrative” questionnaires that actually gather criminal evidence. Health assessments asking about drug use, security clearance updates requesting misconduct disclosure, or command investigations through written formats all potentially require warnings. The substance and compulsion matter more than format or stated purpose.
Defense challenges focus on questionnaire mandatory nature, potential criminal use, and targeting of suspects. Even voluntary questionnaires require warnings if from military superiors to suspected subordinates. Statements in questionnaires lacking warnings face suppression like any other Article 31 violation. Service members should treat written inquiries about potential misconduct as seriously as formal interrogations, seeking counsel before responding.