Investigating Alleged Violations of Military Protective Orders and No-Contact Orders

Executive Summary

Proving that contact occurred is not necessarily the same as proving that a military protective order or no-contact order was violated.

DI-088 explains how a defense investigation can separate the existence of an order, actual notice, prohibited conduct, timing, attribution, authorized exceptions, and proof of contact into distinct factual questions.

An alleged violation may not stand alone. It may be considered alongside an Article 92 charge or other alleged misconduct, making proof or disproof important to the broader defense investigation.

The defense should preserve the complete signed order, every modification, proof of service or actual notice, original communications, account and device information, witness statements, location evidence, and a source-labeled chronology.

A screenshot may appear to show prohibited contact while the complete message thread establishes that the communication preceded service of the order. Likewise, evidence of communication may not resolve who controlled the account, whether a third party was involved, or whether an authorized exception applied.

The objective is not to minimize unfavorable evidence or manufacture doubt. It is to determine what can be verified, what remains disputed, and what the available evidence actually permits anyone to conclude.

A protective-order allegation should be investigated from the order outward—not from the allegation backward.

The defense must first identify the exact order, its effective date, its duration, every modification, the prohibited conduct, and any authorized exceptions. The investigation should then establish how and when the service member received notice before examining the alleged communication, encounter, location, or third-party act.

DI-088 provides a practical framework for evaluating these issues through original records, documented collection methods, accurate attribution, and source-labeled timelines. It explains why the complete communication record may be more important than a screenshot and why timing, time zones, account control, missing content, and ambiguous language must be tested separately.

This approach gives counsel a factual record that distinguishes confirmed facts, disputed facts, reasonable inferences, and unresolved questions.