The Formation Accountability Project is an independent, nonpartisan legislative research and advocacy initiative. Its proposals are discussion drafts and do not represent enacted law, official Department of Defense policy, congressional sponsorship, or legal advice.
Receive information → safety and screening → independent jurisdiction and threshold assessment → investigation or noncriminal review where warranted → authorized disposition → oversight.
Interactive accountability process
Proposed military justice reform · 2027–2030
Suicide and Command Climate Accountability
When we lose a service member, the responsibility of the institution does not end with the notification of a family, the completion of an investigation, or the conclusion of a memorial ceremony.
Discussion draft, not enacted law · Conceptual imagery
Veterans Crisis Line — free, confidential, 24/7
Dial 988, then press 1 · Text 838255. For service members, veterans, and their families.
The Formation Accountability Project is not an emergency response service, mental health provider, official investigative authority, or protected whistleblower disclosure channel.
Before the uniform, there was a child.
A family.
A future.
A person who laughed, dreamed, struggled, accomplished things, and mattered to others.
Military service does not erase those things.
A service member is not simply a rank, a duty position, a personnel record, or a number in an annual report.
When a life ends by suicide, the loss reaches far beyond the military installation.
It reaches parents, spouses, children, siblings, friends, coworkers, and communities.
For the people who loved that service member, life continues with an absence that cannot be filled.
The Formation Accountability Project recognizes that no legislation can undo such a loss.
But institutions can examine their policies, strengthen their procedures, improve support, and respond appropriately when evidence suggests wrongdoing.
That is the purpose of this proposed reform.
We cannot bring back those we have lost.
But we can take seriously what their loss may teach us.
We must be willing to examine what happened, what can be learned, and whether credible evidence of misconduct requires independent criminal investigation.
Every life deserves dignity.
Every family deserves compassion.
Every allegation deserves fair consideration.
And every institution entrusted with human lives must remain willing to improve.
The Department of Defense already has investigative, casualty, medical, administrative, and suicide-prevention responsibilities. This proposal asks whether additional independent screening and command climate safeguards would strengthen those existing processes; it does not claim that suicide-related deaths receive no investigation.
Were there credible allegations of maltreatment, retaliation, coercion, or other criminal conduct?
Were those allegations properly reported, documented, and referred?
Were relevant command climate concerns examined by appropriately independent personnel?
Were witnesses able to provide information without unlawful retaliation?
Were lessons and corrective recommendations documented, evaluated, and implemented where appropriate?
Seven proposed safeguards · Not current statutory requirements
Reform 01
Require documented, appropriately independent screening of specified suicide-related incidents. Define qualifying incidents and evidence thresholds in the proposed bill; not every suicide triggers a full criminal investigation of the chain of command.
Reform 02
Refer credible information indicating a covered offense to the appropriate MCIO. Potential offenses include Article 93 maltreatment, Article 107 false official statements, Article 132 retaliation, and other applicable offenses. Each offense’s legal elements require independent evaluation.
Reform 03
Examine relevant organizational conditions independently in defined circumstances: leadership, reporting, bullying or hazing allegations, unlawful retaliation, access to support, treatment of people seeking help, administrative patterns, and prior climate assessments. Protect medical privacy and privileged communications.
Reform 04
Protect lawful participants against unlawful retaliation while preserving Article 31 rights, legal privileges, applicable confidentiality protections, and due process. Do not promise absolute anonymity.
Reform 05
Refer evidence of designated offenses for assessment under the proposed expanded OSTC framework. Legally authorized prosecutors decide whether charges should be pursued; referral guarantees neither prosecution nor conviction.
Reform 06
Document follow-up for substantiated noncriminal deficiencies. Possible responses include leadership training, administrative review, policy revisions, improved reporting, climate interventions, and better support access. A suicide alone is not a misconduct finding.
Reform 07
Provide privacy-protective implementation reporting on referrals, systemic concerns, and corrective action. Use aggregated information where possible and protect families, witnesses, and accused persons.
Two parallel questions · Illustrative screening results
Criminal indicators: Yes
Organizational concerns: Yes
A defined evidentiary threshold identifies potential criminal misconduct, not guilt.
Defined climate concerns warrant institutional review independently of whether criminal indicators exist.
Shared oversight and learning
Privacy-protective oversight
Institutional learning
Improved prevention and accountability practices
Intended outcomes: greater trust, safer reporting, and stronger readiness
The intended outcomes are goals for evaluation, not proven causal effects or guarantees of reduced suicide rates. A review may also find no misconduct or substantiated deficiency after examining a concern.
First-line leadership
The first-line leader is often among the people best positioned to notice when something has changed.
A team leader may notice when a Soldier begins withdrawing from others.
A squad leader may recognize that someone is struggling with a personal crisis.
A platoon sergeant may identify patterns of harmful conduct.
A commander may recognize that a unit's reporting culture or leadership practices need attention.
These leaders cannot predict every suicide.
They cannot replace behavioral health professionals.
And they should not be expected to diagnose mental health conditions.
But they can build trust.
They can take concerns seriously.
They can help service members access qualified support.
They can respond appropriately to allegations of misconduct.
And they can create conditions in which asking for help does not become a source of humiliation or unlawful punishment.
You cannot order a Soldier to trust you.
You must earn that trust through your conduct.
Military readiness is not measured solely by physical fitness, weapons qualification, equipment status, or completed training requirements.
It also depends on leadership, unit cohesion, sound judgment, communication, and trust.
A Soldier must have confidence that the person directing them in combat is competent and committed to their welfare.
A leader who relies solely on rank may obtain compliance.
But compliance and trust are not the same.
Concerns about leadership conduct, retaliation, and organizational climate deserve serious examination because they may affect morale, reporting behavior, cohesion, and confidence.
The proposed legislation seeks to strengthen accountability and institutional learning without undermining lawful command authority.
Rank establishes authority.
Conduct earns trust.
Trust supports readiness.
Founder testimony · Factual approval required
Families experiencing the suicide death of a service member deserve compassion, accurate information within lawful limits, and access to appropriate support.
They may have questions about the circumstances surrounding the death.
They may wish to understand the investigative process.
They may want to know whether relevant allegations were examined.
Some may choose to participate in advocacy or research.
Others may not.
Both choices deserve respect.
The proposed reform should establish clear family communication expectations while protecting investigative integrity, medical privacy, legal rights, and the interests of other affected persons.
No automatic criminal blame
A death by suicide is not evidence, by itself, that a commander or another service member committed a crime.
Criminal responsibility requires proof of the elements of a defined offense.
Where a proposed aggravated offense depends on a causal connection between misconduct and death, that connection must be established under the applicable statutory standard.
The purpose of independent screening is to determine whether credible evidence warrants further investigation.
The purpose of a criminal investigation is to establish relevant facts.
The purpose of prosecution is to determine whether charges are legally and factually supportable.
And the purpose of a trial is to determine guilt through due process.
Deterrence depends in part on whether people believe that prohibited conduct may be detected, investigated, and appropriately sanctioned.
The proposed reform seeks to reduce opportunities for serious misconduct to be concealed or ignored.
Clear reporting requirements, independent investigative referral, defined prosecutorial authority, and meaningful oversight may create stronger incentives to comply with the law.
The goal is not to punish leaders for tragedies they could not reasonably foresee or prevent.
It is to establish a fair system in which proven criminal misconduct is not insulated from accountability by rank, institutional relationships, or conflicts of interest.
Discouraging prohibited conduct through credible, lawful enforcement.
Improving leadership practices, reporting, support, and organizational learning.
These are related but distinct objectives. The proposed Act has not been demonstrated to reduce suicide rates; effectiveness requires research and evaluation.
Congressional policy research
Are current investigative and administrative processes adequately coordinated?
When should an independent command climate assessment be required?
What evidence threshold should trigger mandatory MCIO referral?
How can family communication improve without compromising privacy?
How should the military protect witnesses and whistleblowers?
What standards should govern the independence of reviewers?
How can duplicative investigations be minimized?
What resources would implementation require?
How should Congress measure the reform’s effectiveness?
What safeguards should prevent unnecessary criminalization or unfair blame?
Official explanation of existing investigations and requesting reports. Disclosure remains subject to applicable law, privacy, and investigative restrictions.
Official bereavement guidance and links to support for military-connected families.
Existing UCMJ rights; proposed reviews must preserve applicable protections.
Existing unlawful-influence protections are distinct from proposed expanded prosecutorial coverage.
Planned Fall 2027–Spring 2030 initiative
Year 1 · 2027–2028
Research existing military suicide response processes, investigative authorities, command climate policies, and available evidence.
Year 2 · 2028–2029
Develop statutory language, seek consultation with military justice and suicide prevention experts, and seek feedback from families and practitioners.
Year 3 · 2029–2030
Present refined proposals for consideration by interested congressional offices, including House and Senate Armed Services Committee members and staff.
Congressional partnerships, sponsorship, and enactment are objectives—not existing accomplishments or guaranteed outcomes.
Explore the full three-year missionSome families are living with an empty place at the table.
Some veterans carry memories of people they served beside.
Some military leaders want better tools to protect their formations.
Some researchers have spent their careers examining suicide prevention.
Some attorneys understand the limits and possibilities of military law.
And some service members have concerns they have never felt comfortable expressing.
Meaningful reform should be informed by the people who understand these experiences and responsibilities.
The Formation Accountability Project invites voluntary, responsible participation from families, veterans, service members, military leaders, researchers, attorneys, and organizations.
No one is obligated to share a painful story.
No one should disclose sensitive information through an unsecured website.
And no participant should be promised an outcome that this initiative cannot deliver.
But those who wish to contribute to the research and policy discussion should have a respectful way to participate.
We train our service members to prepare for the extraordinary demands of war.
We ask them to trust one another.
To follow lawful orders.
To endure hardship.
To place their lives in the hands of their leaders.
That trust carries responsibility.
The responsibility to lead with integrity.
To recognize when someone needs help.
To take allegations of serious misconduct seriously.
To investigate credible evidence impartially.
And to learn from tragedy without assigning blame where the evidence does not support it.
No law can eliminate every risk.
No commander can guarantee that every Soldier will survive.
No investigation can undo a family's loss.
But our institutions can continue improving the way they prevent harm, respond to tragedy, and hold proven wrongdoing accountable.
That work matters.
Because behind every uniform is a human being.
Behind every service member is a story.
And behind every life lost is a future that will never be lived.
For those we have lost.
For those who still serve.
For those who will come after us.
The mission doesn’t end when the uniform comes off.
A tragedy must never become an excuse for unfounded blame.
Nor should it prevent us from asking whether something needs to change.
One life is too many.
Official support
Veterans Crisis Line — free, confidential, 24/7
Dial 988, then press 1 · Text 838255. For service members, veterans, and their families.
The Formation Accountability Project is not an emergency response service, mental health provider, official investigative authority, or protected whistleblower disclosure channel.
If there is immediate danger, contact local emergency services. In the United States, call 911.
