PHOs operate within defined boundaries preventing transformation into prosecutorial investigators while maintaining meaningful inquiry authority. Primary limitations include inability to compel civilian witness attendance, lack of subpoena power, and no authority to grant immunity compelling testimony. PHOs cannot conduct independent investigations beyond hearing evidence, interview witnesses separately, or gather evidence outside formal proceedings.
Procedural constraints prevent ex parte communications with parties about substantive matters. PHOs remain neutral arbiters rather than advocates for any position. Discovery orders beyond government’s existing obligations exceed PHO authority. Remedial powers remain limited to recommendations rather than binding orders excluding evidence or dismissing charges.
Practical limitations include time constraints preventing exhaustive inquiry, resource restrictions on expert assistance, and dependence on party presentations. PHOs cannot order forensic testing, commission investigations, or direct law enforcement activities. Geographic limitations may prevent crime scene visits or physical evidence examination.
Despite limitations, PHOs retain broad discretion questioning witnesses, requesting additional evidence from parties, and exploring issues beyond direct presentations. The inquisitorial aspect permits raising legal concerns neither party addresses. Recommendations may extend beyond presented arguments based on independent analysis. The balance maintains judicial economy while ensuring meaningful preliminary investigation within structural constraints of military justice system.