The Inspector General (IG) serves as a vital resource for all U.S. military personnel, providing an official avenue to report misconduct and workplace issues that have been ignored, dismissed, or covered up. Through interviews and investigations, the IG seeks to uphold justice, ensuring accountability for those guilty of misconduct. Importantly, the IG also protects whistleblowers from retaliation, allowing unethical and illegal behavior to be exposed without fear.
However, despite its critical role, the IG is ultimately a program administered by an installation commander. So, what happens when a report implicates the very commander who oversees the IG? What if the investigation presents a conflict of interest for leadership? In such cases, installation commanders hold the authority to shut down investigations that could damage their careers or the careers of others whom they seek to protect. When commanders intervene to terminate IG investigations, the integrity of the system collapses. Military personnel have the right to report misconduct and seek justice. Yet, all too often, the officer corps shields its own—covering for fellow officers, ignoring legitimate concerns, or outright refusing to act. Commander Ratings fixes this broken system by offering a secure, anonymous platform for service members to report misconduct outside of military control.
By bringing these issues into the public eye, Commander Ratings forces leadership to acknowledge and address them. Commanders who fail to hold their subordinates accountable risk damaging their reputations—an outcome that could jeopardize their career progression. Public scrutiny compels action, ensuring that misconduct is no longer hidden behind closed doors. By leveraging transparency and the power of accountability, Commander Ratings drives commanders to do what’s right: acknowledge problems, hold wrongdoers accountable, and deliver justice for those who deserve it.