The Formation Accountability Project
Independent research & military justice policy
Examining military leadership, institutional accountability, investigative fairness, service member well-being, and the legal safeguards necessary to protect those who serve.
Proposed independent research initiative · No government or university endorsement asserted
Research mission
The Military Leadership, Justice & Institutional Accountability Study is a proposed multidisciplinary research initiative designed to bring together academic institutions, military justice practitioners, researchers, veterans, service members, and military families.
Through independent legal scholarship, scientifically designed surveys, institutional analysis, and public policy research, the initiative seeks to produce evidence capable of informing military justice reform and congressional oversight.
The research initiative will examine whether existing military systems adequately address unlawful maltreatment, abuse of authority, retaliation, falsification of official records, investigative conflicts of interest, and other institutional failures.
Research must also examine the importance of lawful command authority, military discipline, due process, evidentiary safeguards, and protection against unsupported allegations.
The objective is not to predetermine findings or establish that proposed reforms are correct. The objective is to identify what the evidence demonstrates, what remains unknown, and which reforms warrant further consideration.
Research and advocacy remain distinct.
Independent findings may support, challenge, or recommend revisions to MAPSA. Survey responses, institutional applications, and publications are not public endorsements.
Our national research agenda
Twelve critical research questions. Five proposed congressional research reports. One commitment to independent, evidence-based inquiry.
Military leadership, institutional accountability, and the administration of military justice raise questions that cannot be answered through individual experiences, assumptions, or statistics alone.
Through the Military Leadership, Justice & Institutional Accountability Study, The Formation Accountability Project seeks to collaborate with academic institutions, legal scholars, military justice practitioners, public policy researchers, and the military community to examine the effectiveness of existing military accountability systems.
Our research agenda is intended to investigate the prevalence of serious misconduct, the effectiveness of reporting and investigative procedures, the legal adequacy of existing protections, the consequences of military suicide, and the potential effects of proposed reforms.
The findings will help inform independent analysis of the proposed Military Accountability and Service Member Protection Act of 2027 (MAPSA).
Our objective is not to predetermine the conclusions. It is to ask difficult questions, examine the evidence, and make the findings available for informed consideration.
These are research framework elements, not completed findings. Each question remains open to evidence that supports, challenges, or revises a proposal.
Research framework elements · Not completed findings
An interactive research agenda
Explore four areas of proposed inquiry. Every question identifies why it matters, the evidence researchers will seek, related MAPSA provisions where applicable, and its current research status.
Category I
Questions 01–03
Category II
Questions 04–06
Category III
Questions 07–09
Category IV
Questions 10–12
Proposed congressional research reports
The purpose of this research agenda is not simply to identify problems. It is to evaluate whether proposed legal and institutional reforms address those problems effectively, fairly, and at a justifiable cost.
The initiative proposes to organize research findings into five comprehensive reports that may inform congressional oversight, legislative drafting, committee deliberations, and consideration of military justice provisions in future National Defense Authorization Acts.
I
Report I
Status: Proposed
Future publication area
No report has been reviewed or approved for publication.
II
Report II
Status: Proposed
Future publication area
No report has been reviewed or approved for publication.
III
Report III
Status: Proposed
Future publication area
No report has been reviewed or approved for publication.
IV
Report IV
Status: Proposed
Future publication area
No report has been reviewed or approved for publication.
V
Report V
Status: Proposed
Future publication area
No report has been reviewed or approved for publication.
How we will evaluate the evidence
Every major MAPSA provision should be examined against a consistent evidence framework.
01
Is there credible evidence of a specific problem that existing law or policy does not adequately address?
02
Does the proposal fill a genuine legal gap, or does existing authority already address the conduct?
03
What evidence supports the proposed reform, and what alternative approaches might achieve similar outcomes?
04
Are the rights of complainants, witnesses, and accused service members adequately protected?
05
What staffing, funding, training, and administrative requirements would follow?
06
What indicators would allow Congress to determine whether the reform achieved its intended objectives?
Proposed evaluation framework
These criteria represent a proposed research evaluation framework. No provision should be described as independently validated until supporting research has been completed and reviewed.
National survey integration
The proposed National Military Leadership & Accountability Survey is intended to contribute firsthand perspectives from active-duty personnel, National Guard and Reserve members, veterans, military retirees, and military families.
Survey research will examine leadership experiences, reporting barriers, investigative confidence, official-record disputes, workplace conditions, and perspectives on possible military justice reforms.
Survey findings must be interpreted alongside administrative data, legal analysis, and other research.
A voluntary, self-selected survey must not be presented as representative of the entire Armed Forces without a scientifically defensible sampling methodology.
Explore the National SurveyAcademic research partnerships
The Formation Accountability Project seeks collaboration with law schools, criminal justice departments, public policy programs, public health researchers, psychology departments, sociology departments, and data science programs.
The initiative welcomes independent legal scholarship, empirical research, methodological review, policy analysis, and critical examination of proposed legislation.
Academic partners must remain free to challenge assumptions, identify weaknesses, recommend alternative reforms, and publish findings that do not support particular MAPSA provisions.
No university is identified as a participating partner without its authorization. Research interest does not create an affiliation or endorsement.
Congressional research dossier
The proposed long-term research deliverable is a Congressional Research Dossier on Military Leadership, Justice, and Institutional Accountability.
The dossier would consolidate independent research, legal analysis, survey findings, economic assessments, and provision-by-provision legislative evaluations into a transparent evidence package.
It would seek to answer six fundamental questions and may be used to inform congressional briefings, committee consideration, legislative drafting, and future NDAA discussions.
It must not be presented as an official congressional publication or institutional endorsement.
Evidence should inform reform—not follow it.
Our commitment is to pursue difficult questions, examine competing explanations, recognize uncertainty, and make credible findings available to those responsible for protecting the integrity of military service and military justice.
The objective is not to prove MAPSA correct. It is to determine which reforms are justified by evidence, which require revision, and which may not be supported.
Explore the initiative
A seven-section instrument in development, with informed-consent and ten-gate launch controls.
Preview the questionnaireSeven disciplines advancing independent scholarship without predetermined conclusions.
Explore the consortiumHuman, economic, readiness, and family consequences with verified metrics and explicit limitations.
Review the research centerA review-gated library for methodology, findings, limitations, sources, and version history.
Visit the publication libraryInstitutional inquiry
01
Examine lawful command authority, psychological safety, standards, reporting barriers, and institutional trust.
Planned
02
Evaluate proposed UCMJ amendments, evidentiary safeguards, proportionality, and protection against unsupported allegations.
Planned
03
Study complaint intake, investigative independence, conflicts of interest, evidence handling, and OSTC review.
Planned
04
Study surveillance, organizational associations, family impacts, ethical death review, and prevention evaluation without presuming causation.
Planned
05
Distinguish documented expenditures, beneficiary transfers, training investments, replacement costs, and readiness effects.
Source development
06
Develop a reviewed questionnaire, sampling plan, consent protocol, privacy controls, and disclosure-safe reporting methods.
In development
07
Assess MAPSA provisions, oversight, administrative feasibility, costs, transition periods, and contrary findings.
Planned
Methods before headlines
Sampling, oversight, conflicts, publication standards, corrections, and the boundary between scholarship and advocacy.
Learn more →
Data minimization, consent, access controls, retention, withdrawal, and disclosure-safe aggregate reporting.
Learn more →
Eight Titles of legal and policy questions, including contrary findings and implementation tradeoffs.
Learn more →
Research library
The project’s original legal, policy, surveillance, and peer-reviewed source register remains available below. Verification limits are recorded rather than implied away.
Official statutory text; distinguishes member voting, guilty pleas, judge-alone proceedings, and death sentencing.
Supreme Court opinion on civilian Sixth Amendment jury unanimity; not an automatic military-panel rule.
Article 31 — Compulsory self-incrimination prohibited
Special trial counsel authority — 10 U.S.C. § 824a
Covered offenses — 10 U.S.C. § 801
Existing UCMJ rights; proposed reviews must preserve applicable protections.
Existing unlawful-influence protections are distinct from proposed expanded prosecutorial coverage.
DoDI 5505.03 — Initiation of Investigations by Defense Criminal Investigative Organizations
CGIS roles and responsibilities — COMDTINST 5520.5G
Official program information and education.
Official instruction, effective June 21, 2019. Establishes policy, responsibilities, and training requirements; consult the official source for updates.
Indicator sheets, awareness materials, and worker-rights resources.
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.
Table 1; component counts include confirmed and suspected cases at the report cutoff. Earlier years may be revised.
Original CY2021 component series; not yet reconciled to subsequent revisions.
R46503, August 28, 2020. Historical constitutional and procedural background; not a complete statement of later statutory changes.
No specific GAO finding is asserted. Relevant GAO reports remain an open review task.
49(2), 529–534; DOI 10.1111/sltb.12450. Exposure estimate is not military-specific or a unique bereaved-person count.
Article 52 unanimity policy analysis, victim safeguards, implementation costs, and legislative research questions.
Issuing organization: The Formation Accountability Project · Publication date: not supplied · Discussion draft
Open verified uploaded documentThe policy case for the proposed Act: problem statement, objectives, seven reform titles, safeguards, implementation considerations, and congressional research agenda.
Issuing organization: The Formation Accountability Project · Publication date: not supplied · Discussion draft
Open verified uploaded documentUpdated 16-page, eight-title discussion draft of the Military Accountability and Service Member Protection Act of 2027 (MAPSA), including maltreatment response coordination, reporting options, victim legal assistance, protective measures, and investigative-record review. Not introduced legislation; formal legislative-counsel review is required.
Issuing organization: The Formation Accountability Project · Publication date: not supplied · Discussion draft
Open verified uploaded documentAccountability Requires Evidence. Justice Requires Independence. Service Requires Trust.
Research should illuminate the evidence, identify uncertainty, and inform decisions—not predetermine conclusions.
Become a Research Partner