| |
. the injury was incurred under circumstances that
suggest a finding of not in line of duty might result.
. there is a reasonable chance of permanent
disability, and the CO considers the appointment of a
fact-finding body the appropriate means to make sure
an adequate official record is made concerning the
circumstances surrounding the incident.
l the injured party is a member of the Naval or
Marine Corps Reserve, and the CO determines an
investigation to be the appropriate means for recording
the circumstances.
ACTION BY REVIEWING AUTHORITIES
The CA must specifically comment on the line of
duty/misconduct opinion and take one of the following
actions:
l The CA must approve, disapprove, or modify the
opinion expressed by the fact-finding body by simply
stating his or her conclusion in the endorsement.
l If, upon review of the report or record, the CA
believes the injury or disease was incurred not in line of
duty and due to the member’s own misconduct, the
member may be afforded an opportunity to submit any
desired information.
If provided the opportunity to submit additional
information, the member will be advised that ( 1 ) no
statement against his or her interest relating to the origin,
incurrence, or aggravation of any disease or injury
sulfered need be made and (2) if the member is
suspected of having committed an offense, he or she will
be advised of his or her Article 31, UCMJ, rights. If the
member elects not to provide further information, that
election will be set forth in the reviewing authority’s
endorsement.
The CA should make sure appropriate time lost,
enlistment extension, and similar entries arc made in
service and/or medical records before sending the report
of investigation of an injury concluded to have been
incurred not in the line of duty. In the event the not in
the line of duty opinion is later disapproved by the
OEGCMJ, corrective entries can be made at that time.
FORWARDING
Unless the CA is empowered to convene GCMs,
send the record or report to an OEGCMJ. This officer
may take any action on the report that could have been
taken by the CA.
With respect to conclusions
concerning misconduct and line of duty, he or she will
indicate his or her approval, disapproval, or
modification of such conclusion unless he or she returns
the record for further inquiry. A copy of this action will
be sent to the CO of the member concerned so that
appropriate entries may be made in the service and
medical records. Reviewing authorities subsequent to
the OEGCMJ need neither comment nor record
approval or disapproval of the prior actions concerning
line of duty and misconduct.
INVESTIGATIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR
SPECIFIC INCIDENTS
The IO should be aware of particular problem areas
in line of duty/misconduct investigations. Examples of
situations commonly encountered are listed in the
following paragraphs, along with a listing of various
facts that should be included in investigative reports.
The examples are not intended to be comprehensive, nor
do the listed factors purport to cover every fact situation
that may arise.
Speeding
It is impossible to state categorically when
excessive speed becomes gross negligence and requires
a finding of misconduct. The investigative report should
contain information about the type and condition of the
road; the number and width of the lanes; the type of area
(densely populated or rural); any hills or curves that
played a part in the accident; the traffic conditions; the
time of day and weather conditions; the posted speed
limit in the area; the mechanical condition of the car
(particularly the brakes and tires); and the prior driving
experience of the member. The speed of the vehicle is
also important; however, estimates of speed based solely
upon physical evidence at the scene of the crash, such
as skid marks and damage to the vehicle, are somewhat
conjectural unless corroborated by other evidence.
Therefore, attempts should be made to secure estimates
of speed from witnesses, passengers, and drivers. In this
way, the postaccident estimates of the police may be
corroborated.
Falling Asleep at the Wheel
Fulling asleep at the wheel is one of the most
common causes of accidents, but is one of the most
difficult situations in which to establish misconduct.
The act of falling asleep, in itself, does not constitute
gross negligence; however, the act of driving while in a
condition of such extreme fatigue or drowsiness that the
13-22
|
