Command Structure

The U.S. Regarding improper or unlawful command influence during the UCMJ investigations process, we reviewed the record of decisions made by the Inquiry Officers and Investigating Officers in the UCMJ investigations to determine whether they were in compliance with provisions in the UCMJ and the Manual for Courts-Martial. We found that the Board, in a limited time frame, conducted an extensive investigation that fulfilled the requirements of Air Force Regulation 110-14 to obtain and preserve evidence and, with a few exceptions, to report the factual circumstances relating to the accident. During our review of the Board’s investigation/report and subsequent Department of Defense reviews, plus our interviews of Operation Provide Comfort officials and participants, we noted that the Board report and/or opinion (1) did not discuss the incident F-15 pilots’ responsibility, under the Airspace Control Order, to report to the Airborne Command Element aboard the AWACS about the unidentified helicopters; (2) cited a CFAC Commander statement that inaccurately portrayed the Airborne Command Element as not having authority to stop the incident; and (3) erroneously concluded that the Black Hawks’ use of an incorrect electronic code prevented the F-15 pilots from receiving electronic responses from the helicopters. (The Board President’s opinion appears as app. We found no evidence of improper or unlawful command influence exerted during the Aircraft Accident Investigation Board process. No Discussion of F-15 Pilots’ Requirement to Report to Airborne Command Element Who Had Authority to Stop Encounter

Although the Aircraft Accident Investigation Board reported that incident participants, including the Black Hawk pilots, lacked knowledge of command and control guidance, such as portions of the Airspace Control Order, it did not discuss the F-15 pilots’ responsibility under the Airspace Control Order to report to the Airborne Command Element when encountering an unknown aircraft during Operation Provide Comfort missions. A Perceived Discipline Problem and a Perceived Rush to Engage

Victims’ family members and others raised concerns about the lack of discussion in the Board report concerning the discipline of F-15 pilots in general in Operation Provide Comfort and the F-15 pilots’ perceived urgency to engage during the shootdown. This more complete information, in turn, may have raised additional questions about the actions and inaction of the F-15 pilots and the Airborne Command Element and, therefore, could have influenced subsequent disciplinary or corrective actions. On the basis of his review of administrative actions taken by higher-level authorities regarding Air Force personnel involved in the shootdown, the Air Force Chief of Staff determined that the personnel records of some involved personnel did not reflect their failure to meet Air Force standards. Consequently, we were unable to confirm whether the consideration and disposition of suspected offenses under the UCMJ were the result of improper or unlawful command influence.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed military investigations made subsequent to the April 14, 1994, shootdown by U.S. Air Force F-15 fighters of two Army Black Hawk helicopters over Iraq in which 26 individuals died.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) the Aircraft Accident Investigation Board conducted an extensive investigation that complied with evidentiary requirements and guidelines in collecting and preserving evidence and produced a report that, with a few exceptions, provided an overview of the factual circumstances relating to the accident; (2) the report focused on command and control problems, including individuals' lack of knowledge of specific procedures, but: (a) did not discuss the F-15 pilots' responsibility to report to the Airborne Command Element when encountering an unknown aircraft; and (b) cited a statement that inaccurately portrayed the Airborne Command Element as not having authority to stop the incident, even though evidence that the Airborne Command Element had the authority was available to the Board; (3) the Board President erroneously concluded that the Black Hawks' use of an incorrect electronic identification code resulted in the F-15 pilots not receiving an electronic response; (4) family members and others raised concerns about a perceived general lack of discipline in the F-15 pilot community in Operation Provide Comfort and a perceived urgency by the pilots to engage during the shootdown, but the Board's report and opinion did not discuss these issues; (5) Operation Provide Comfort officials stated that the pilots' failure to contact the Airborne Command Element was the result of a lack of F-15 mission discipline at the time of the incident; (6) the officials stated that, in their view, there was no reason for the F-15 pilots' urgency to engage; (7) these issues are not inconsistent with the Board President's conclusion regarding the chain of events, but including them in the Board's report may have raised additional questions about the pilots' actions and the Airborne Command Element that could have been useful in subsequent proceedings; (8) during its review of the Aircraft Accident Investigation Board process, GAO found no evidence of improper or unlawful command influence; (9) the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) investigations complied with provisions of the UCMJ and the Manual for Courts-Martial; (10) GAO found no evidence of improper or unlawful command influence in the UCMJ investigations, but was unable to confirm whether the consideration and disposition of suspected offenses under the UCMJ were the result of improper or unlawful command influence; and (11) the Air Force Chief of Staff took additional personnel actions after finding that a number of individuals' performance evaluations had not reflected their failure to meet Air Force standards.