For Service-Members under criminal investigation one of the most overlooked but insidious phrases on can hear are the words: “You have been titled.” It is not a phrase most people have ever encountered before. They immediately assume it means they are about to be charged with a crime, face a court-martial, or that their military career is effectively over. Others believe that if they are never prosecuted, the matter will simply disappear. Unfortunately, both assumptions are often incorrect.
Titling is one of the least understood aspects of the military justice system, yet it can have some of the most significant long-term consequences for a Service-Member’s career. Unlike a conviction, an Article 15, or even many administrative actions, the effects of being titled may follow an individual long after an investigation has concluded. Even when a commander declines to prosecute, a military judge dismisses charges, or a Service-Member is acquitted at trial, the titling decision remains.
That disconnect is frustrating and can come up years later when looking for civilian employment. Our legal system is built on the idea that individuals are presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Titling, however, operates under an entirely different framework. It is an investigative process rather than a judicial one, and because of that distinction, many Service-Members find themselves living with the consequences of an investigation even though no one ever proved they committed a crime.
Over the years, we have represented numerous clients who were shocked to discover that a criminal investigation they believed was behind them continued to appear during security clearance reviews, background investigations, promotion screenings, or applications for civilian employment. In many cases, they had never even been formally charged. Understanding how titling works—and, perhaps more importantly, understanding what it does not mean—is essential for anyone facing a military criminal investigation.
What Titling Actually Is
At its core, titling is simply an administrative decision made by a military criminal investigative organization such as the Army Criminal Investigation Division (CID), NCIS, OSI, or another Department of Defense law enforcement agency. When investigators determine that “credible information” exists indicating an individual may have committed a criminal offense, that person’s identifying information is entered as the subject of the Report of Investigation (ROI). The investigation is then indexed so it can be retrieved later for law enforcement and security purposes.
That administrative purpose is important because it often gets lost in the discussion. Titling was never intended to serve as a declaration of guilt. It does not mean someone has been convicted of an offense, nor does it even mean charges will ultimately be preferred. Rather, it ostensibly exists so that investigative agencies maintain an accurate record of who was investigated.
Department of Defense policy is explicit on this point. The act of titling is not supposed to be used as the basis for judicial punishment or adverse administrative action by itself. Investigators make the titling decision; commanders later decide whether discipline is appropriate; prosecutors decide whether charges should be brought; and ultimately, if necessary, judges or court-martial panels determine guilt. These are separate decisions made under entirely different legal standards.
Unfortunately, while the law distinguishes between these concepts, the practical reality is often much different. Once an individual learns they have been titled, the distinction between an administrative investigative decision and a criminal accusation can become largely academic. The existence of the investigation itself may influence future opportunities regardless of how the underlying allegations were ultimately resolved.
The “Credible Information” Standard Is Remarkably Low
Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the entire process is the standard investigators must satisfy before titling someone.
Unlike a criminal conviction, investigators do not need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Unlike many civilian arrests, they do not even need probable cause. Instead, Department of Defense policy requires only that “credible information” exist suggesting that the individual committed the offense under investigation. Credible information is defined as information that, considering its source, nature, and the totality of the circumstances, is sufficiently believable to lead a trained investigator to presume the facts are true. In reality, this could just simply be the statement of a biased accuser.
This distinction cannot be overstated. Because the standard is intentionally low, investigators often make the titling decision very early in the investigation, sometimes before every witness has been interviewed, before digital evidence has been analyzed, and before significant exculpatory evidence has been discovered. This frequently explains why individuals who are eventually exonerated were nevertheless titled at the outset of the case.
Why Titling Can Follow You Long After the Investigation Ends
One of the greatest frustrations surrounding titling is that its consequences often outlive the criminal investigation itself.
Once a person is titled, identifying information is generally entered into the Defense Central Index of Investigations (DCII), allowing the investigation to be retrieved for future law enforcement and security purposes. Within the Army, records are also maintained through the Army Crime Records Center. These databases may later become relevant during security clearance investigations, sensitive assignment screenings, federal employment background checks, and numerous other personnel actions.
The practical result is that an investigation which never produced criminal charges may continue resurfacing years later.
At the Jordan UCMJ Law Group we regularly encounter Service-Members who believed an investigation had been resolved because prosecutors declined to pursue charges or because they were acquitted at trial. Years later they are asked to explain the investigation during a employment background investigation or security clearance review. Although investigators and adjudicators understand the distinction between titling and guilt, explaining the circumstances surrounding an old criminal investigation is never a position anyone wants to find themselves in.
This is one reason titling generates so much deserved criticism within the military legal community. While the administrative rationale for preserving investigative records is understandable, the practical consequences can be significant for individuals who ultimately committed no offense or whose cases were resolved entirely in their favor.
“I Was Never Convicted. Can’t They Just Remove It?”
This is probably the question we hear most often, and until recently, the answer was usually discouraging.
Historically, removing a title from a Report of Investigation was extraordinarily difficult. Under prior policy, individuals generally had to establish either that they had been identified through mistaken identity or that investigators lacked sufficient credible information at the time the titling decision was made. Importantly, the question was not whether later evidence established innocence; rather, the inquiry focused on what investigators reasonably knew when they initially titled the individual. That was an exceptionally difficult burden to overcome.
Recognizing these concerns, Congress and the Department of Defense significantly revised the governing rules in 2023. Current Department of Defense Instruction 5505.07 now provides a much broader amendment and expungement process. Individuals may request that information be corrected, removed, or expunged from investigative reports and related databases, and reviewing officials may consider factors that extend well beyond the narrow mistaken identity standard that existed for many years.
Among other things, reviewing officials may evaluate whether probable cause actually existed, whether sufficient evidence supported the offense, whether disciplinary or judicial action was ever initiated, the outcome of those proceedings, the extent of corroborating evidence, and whether removal would otherwise serve the interests of justice. Those changes have not made expungement easy, but they have unquestionably created more meaningful opportunities for relief than existed under the prior framework.
Taking Action Early Matters
One mistake we see repeatedly is waiting until years after leaving military service to address a titling issue. By then, witnesses have moved, records become more difficult to obtain, and investigators may no longer remember the details of the case.
Whenever possible, individuals should obtain a copy of the complete ROI through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act process while the investigation is still relatively recent. Reviewing the actual investigative file—not simply relying on memory or secondhand accounts—is often the first step toward determining whether an amendment or expungement request has merit. Supporting documentation, witness statements, and other favorable evidence should likewise be preserved as early as possible.
Equally important is understanding that these cases are highly fact-specific. Every investigation is different, and there is no single argument that successfully removes a title in every circumstance. The applicable regulations, the evidence available when investigators made the decision, and the subsequent procedural history of the case all play an important role in determining whether relief is realistically available.
Final Thoughts
Military titling occupies a unique place within the military justice system that really does not have a civilian equivalent. It is neither a criminal conviction nor a routine administrative action, yet it often produces consequences that extend well beyond the life of the underlying investigation.
The good news is that the law has evolved somewhat. Recent policy changes recognize that individuals should have a meaningful opportunity to challenge investigative records that no longer accurately reflect the circumstances of their case. While obtaining relief is still far from automatic, Service-Members today have considerably more options than they did only a few years ago.
If there is one lesson worth emphasizing, it is this: do not assume that because an investigation ended favorably, the matter is over. Likewise, do not assume that because you have been titled, nothing can be done. Both assumptions are frequently incorrect. An experienced attorney can help you navigate this process, clean up your record, and undo the damage caused by this administrative procedure.