When a service member is in the middle of a court-martial, the question of who controls a mental health evaluation becomes legally sensitive. A commander may believe an evaluation is warranted, perhaps out of genuine concern for the member’s safety or fitness. But once charges are referred and trial is underway, the authority to order a forensic evaluation shifts in important ways. The short answer is that a commander’s general authority to direct mental health evaluations exists, but it is constrained once trial proceedings are active, and a competency or responsibility inquiry tied to the case belongs to the military judge, not the command.
Two different kinds of evaluation
The confusion in this area comes from conflating two distinct things. The first is a command-directed mental health evaluation, an administrative tool governed by Department of Defense Instruction 6490.04. The second is a forensic inquiry into an accused’s mental capacity or mental responsibility for charged offenses, governed by Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 706. They have different purposes, different decision-makers, and different procedural protections.
A command-directed evaluation under DoDI 6490.04 is ordered by a commander or supervisor to assess a member’s fitness for duty, suitability for continued service, or risk of harm to self or others. An RCM 706 inquiry, often called a sanity board, addresses whether the accused has the capacity to stand trial and whether the accused was mentally responsible at the time of the charged offense. The first is about duty and safety; the second is about the criminal proceeding.
Command-directed evaluations and their safeguards
DoDI 6490.04 establishes detailed procedures precisely because directing a member into a mental health evaluation can be misused. The instruction distinguishes emergency referrals, used when a member is determined to be at risk of harming self or others, from non-emergency referrals, used to assess fitness and suitability. Non-emergency command-directed evaluations carry procedural safeguards, including advance notice to the member, an opportunity to be heard, and the involvement of mental health professionals who report findings back to the command.
These safeguards exist to prevent a commander from weaponizing a mental health referral, for example to retaliate against a member or to label a whistleblower as unstable. Even outside the trial context, the instruction channels and limits the commander’s discretion rather than leaving it unchecked.
Why active trial proceedings change the analysis
Once charges are referred and trial is active, the central concern shifts to protecting the integrity of the criminal proceeding and the accused’s rights. A command-directed evaluation aimed at the member’s general fitness is one thing; an evaluation that probes the accused’s mental state in a way that bears on guilt, capacity, or responsibility is another. The latter is the province of the forensic process under RCM 706, with its attendant protections.
This matters because a forensic evaluation can produce information about the accused’s mental condition that is directly relevant to the charges. RCM 706 and the related rules build in protections governing how such information is handled, including limits on the use of an accused’s statements made during a compelled examination. A command that simply ordered its own evaluation to develop information about the accused’s mental state during active litigation would risk circumventing those protections and intruding on the judge’s authority over the case.
Who orders an RCM 706 inquiry once charges are referred
The timing rule under RCM 706 is specific. A request for a mental capacity or responsibility inquiry may be initiated by several participants, including the commander of the accused, an investigating officer, trial counsel, defense counsel, the military judge, or a court-martial panel member. But where the request is directed matters. If the request is made before referral of charges, it goes to the convening authority. Once charges have been referred, the request is directed to the military judge.
That shift is the heart of the answer. After referral, the military judge controls whether a sanity board is ordered and on what terms. The judge has both the authority and, when questions about the accused’s mental responsibility or capacity arise during trial, the responsibility to order further inquiry. A commander cannot unilaterally substitute a command-directed evaluation for the judicially supervised RCM 706 process to resolve trial-related questions about the accused’s mind.
Where a command-directed evaluation may still be lawful during trial
None of this means a commander loses all authority while a member is being tried. A genuine emergency, where the member presents a risk of harm to self or others, can still justify an emergency command-directed evaluation under DoDI 6490.04, because that referral addresses safety rather than the litigation. The lawfulness turns on purpose and good faith. An evaluation genuinely directed at imminent safety risk stands on different footing than an evaluation engineered to gather case-relevant mental health information or to pressure the accused.
Bottom line
A commander’s authority to direct a mental health evaluation does not disappear when a court-martial is pending, but it is meaningfully constrained. Administrative command-directed evaluations remain available for legitimate fitness and safety purposes under DoDI 6490.04, with their built-in safeguards. But once charges are referred, the forensic question of the accused’s competency and mental responsibility belongs to the military judge under RCM 706, and a request for that inquiry is directed to the judge rather than resolved by command order. A command-directed evaluation used to probe the accused’s mental state for the case, or to retaliate, would be unlawful and subject to challenge. The line is purpose: safety and fitness on one side, the criminal proceeding on the other.
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.