Correcting the record has become something of a personal mission for Dr. Arthur Kellermann, dean of the military medical school, and a group of high-profile colleagues that includes a former surgeon general, an astronaut and a former White House doctor. They argue that the reputation of their mentor, Dr. Burkle, has been severely damaged and that the good name of both the university and the academy is at stake.

The case has pitted the military medical school, which prides itself on honor and service, against the academy, which considers its members above reproach.

“If you want to try and have an independent effort to investigate, it can be a very significant undertaking, with due process, so that you are confident in the outcome,” said R. Alta Charo, a professor of law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, who is also a member of the academy. “A lot of it will be confidential because they are personnel actions.”

In this case, it wasn’t until Dr. Burkle heard about the plagiarism, years after it occurred, that he notified the military medical school. An investigation by the medical school found that before Dr. Noji was named to the academy, he had plagiarized five research papers, fabricated an account of his personal exploits in Iraq, and claimed unearned degrees and awards, according to the school’s documents. The school dismissed him in May 2016.

But when Dr. Arthur Kellermann asked the academy to dismiss Dr. Noji as well, he hit a roadblock. Nothing in the academy bylaws allowed for ousting a member who had committed scientific misconduct. So Dr. Kellermann, who was on the academy’s governing board, and colleagues, lobbied for the change. Dr. Victor Dzau, president of the academy, supported it.

Formerly known as the Institute of Medicine, the organization is a division of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine and has over 2,000 members in the United States. It accepts about 70 new members from the U.S. a year. It is not a government agency, but it is often relied on as a source of independent, objective analysis for policymakers on subjects ranging from gun violence to regulation of medical devices. There is a long list of researchers who would like the cachet that comes from election to the academy and the high profile that can come from serving on one of its advisory panels.