PRO

Timothy James Bilecki's Legal Cases (543)

Call for a consultation Call (813) 669-5859 Message View Profile

Military law

Bilecki Defeats Both Sexual Touch Allegations and Chaplain Confidentiality Claim at Camp Humphreys BOI; Captain Retained

Jul 24, 2026

OUTCOME: No basis for either alleged sexual touch and no basis for the alleged chaplain confidentiality breach. Basis found only for the GOMOR in the AMHRR and conduct unbecoming. Captain retained.

The Army tried to end a chaplain's career over one night in the Ville outside Camp Humphreys. By the time the case reached a Board of Inquiry, the night had become two allegations of sexual touching, ... an accusation that he betrayed a confidential chaplain communication, a permanent GOMOR, and conduct unbecoming. Tim Bilecki and Ben Gold went to Korea and tried the case. The Board rejected both sexual touching allegations, rejected the confidentiality allegation, and retained the Captain. The complainant contacted CID. The next day, she asked that the case not proceed, wrote that she could "let it go," and said she did not want her name involved. CID told her the investigation would continue. She later repeated a generalized allegation, so the defense did not call her withdrawal a recantation. She did not testify at the Board. The other Captain who drove the report did not testify either. The Government's only live witness from the group was the Major, and she had seen none of the charged touching. The Curtain Call camera recorded the group inside the bar from 0548 until shortly after 0605. The public street camera stored its running time in a hidden subtitle track and filmed from far enough away that a utility pole repeatedly blocked the pair. The Western Pub system was motion activated, not continuous. CID had captured it by pointing a cell phone at a monitor, and the displayed clock was one hour fast. The defense extracted the times, corrected the error of one hour, and played the footage at the hearing so the Board could compare CID's words with the images themselves. Months before this night, our client had written a memorandum that invoked chaplain confidentiality and withheld sensitive details about that Captain's family situation. It showed that on that earlier occasion, he had treated the information as protected. The acting Eighth Army command chaplain testified about chaplain confidentiality practice. The defense argued that the accusation confused ordinary information the complainant already knew with a privileged disclosure that had never occurred. The Board later found no basis for the allegation, but issued no written explanation for its finding. Then six additional defense witnesses testified about the chaplain the Army was deciding whether to lose: a Colonel, a retired Lieutenant Colonel, the acting Eighth Army command chaplain, two Command Sergeants Major, and an Army behavioral health psychologist. Together, they allowed the defense to show his work from the command, chaplain, enlisted leadership, and behavioral health perspectives. One Command Sergeant Major said that even if the alleged misconduct had occurred, he would take the chaplain back "absolutely" and "right now." The Board found a basis for the GOMOR because it remained in his AMHRR and found a basis for conduct unbecoming. It found no basis for the alleged buttocks touch, no basis for the alleged groin touch, and no basis for the alleged breach of chaplain confidentiality. It retained him in the Army.

Military law

Bilecki Defeats Every Sexual and Sentinel Charge at Osan; 15 Days and No Punitive Discharge

Jun 19, 2026

OUTCOME: Every charged sexual offense, every charged sentinel offense, and the resisting apprehension charge defeated. Seven complete acquittals and one ordinary battery lesser included offense. Fifteen days and no punitive discharge or adjudged forfeitures.

This was a courtroom fight from beginning to end. The Air Force brought eight specifications to a fully contested general court-martial at Osan: abusive sexual contact, indecent exposure, resisting ap ... prehension, three specifications of disrespect toward sentinels, and two specifications of assault upon sentinels. The Article 120 charge carried potential sex offender registration consequences. The Government asked the panel to see two drunken nights as sexual criminality and every confrontation with Town Patrol as an offense against a sentinel. After the videos were played, the witnesses were cross examined, and the law governing sentinels was put in front of the members, the panel acquitted our client of every charged sexual offense and every charged sentinel offense. One Town Patrol officer reported seeing a grabbing gesture toward a Korean woman outside. Another told OSI that she saw a grabbing motion but no physical contact. That alleged street encounter became the reason they followed our client into Brue, even though the woman appeared oblivious when Town Patrol approached her. Neither officer activated a body camera for the encounter, and the defense motion documented that street camera footage had not been located. From that scene, the Government charged intentional indecent exposure, disrespect, and kicking a Town Patrol officer. We made the panel look at the entire Mermaid sequence, not merely the ugliest still frame. The first Town Patrol visit had produced a report but no corroboration or enforcement action. The second found a physical confrontation in which the primary exposure witness later participated. The defense also used the body camera sequence surrounding the hospital transport to show the depth of our client's impairment. The panel acquitted him of all three Mermaid specifications. Bilecki Law Group challenged all three disrespect specifications and the sentinel portions of both assault specifications under R.C.M. 917. The military judge did not rule on the motion before findings, so we carried the sentinel fight through closing and into the deliberation room. The members then asked the question that showed the defense issue had landed: was there a legal difference between a sentinel and a member of Security Forces or Town Patrol, and did any governing document officially designate members of the 51st Security Forces Squadron as sentinels? The judge answered no to the question about a governing document. After the verdict eliminated every charged sentinel offense, both sides agreed that nothing remained for the judge to decide under R.C.M. 917. The Government still asked for the maximum punishment on that battery: a bad conduct discharge, six months of confinement, total forfeitures, reduction to E-1, and a reprimand. We asked for a reprimand only. The sentence was 15 days, reduction to E-4, and a reprimand. There was no punitive discharge and no adjudged forfeitures. The Government came to court with two alleged sex offenses and five alleged sentinel offenses. It left with none of them.

Military law

Bilecki Cuts $76,000 BAH Fraud Case from Five Specifications to One Plea and Secures Army Retirement at Camp Henry

Jun 12, 2026

OUTCOME: Five specifications reduced to one plea. Forty-five days, no punitive discharge, and an approved Army retirement.

By the time the Army preferred charges, the Sergeant First Class had more than 19 years of active service and was approaching retirement. The allegations arose from an unaccompanied Korea assignment t ... hat began in May 2023. His wife had lived in Minnesota for years. The Army accused him of creating a California lease, listing a San Diego address for her, and using the much higher San Diego BAH rate to collect approximately $76,000. The Army did not treat this as a pay error. It alleged a deliberate scheme involving tens of thousands of dollars through five criminal specifications that exposed him to extended confinement, a punitive discharge, and the loss of the retirement he had spent almost two decades earning. When our client retained Bilecki in February 2026, the CID file included Army pay calculations dating to 2008 that combined housing, family separation, and moving payments into a gross total approaching $450,000. Those numbers made the case look enormous. They also mixed nearly two decades of benefits with the much shorter period on the charge sheet. Tim Bilecki did not sell him a fantasy about the evidence. The only responsible defense was to make the Army prove every charge and every dollar, then negotiate an agreement that protected the retirement. Before the final agreement, the case still exposed him to confinement and financial punishment on all five specifications. Bilecki would not accept a deal that left the retirement exposed. Then Bilecki changed the case. Our client pleaded guilty only to the Article 121 larceny specification and not guilty to the other four specifications. The agreement required the Government to move before findings to dismiss those four without prejudice, with the dismissals to become with prejudice after final judgment if the guilty finding survived. The agreement capped confinement at 45 days and prohibited a punitive discharge, fine, forfeitures, and every other punishment except reduction to E-6. It required the Convening Authority to withhold the charged misconduct from subordinate commanders, not initiate separation, and not oppose the retirement request. If a higher Army authority initiated separation, the Convening Authority agreed to recommend that he be allowed to retire. The charge sheet reduced almost two decades of Army service to five accusations and a dollar figure. We put the rest of the man back into the case. He was a combat aviation veteran who later led Soldiers in recruiting and culinary assignments, earned two college degrees on active duty, mentored younger Soldiers, and received multiple Air Medals. Tim Bilecki personally appeared at Camp Henry for sentencing. The military judge imposed the maximum confinement allowed by the agreement: 45 days. The military judge's authority was limited to reduction to E-6 and no more than 45 days. The Convening Authority's separate commitments protected the retirement process, and the Army approved his retirement.

Military law

Bilecki Cuts 31-Specification Army CSAM Case from 525 Years to a 20-Year Ceiling and Secures Broad Immunity

May 08, 2026

OUTCOME: Thirty-one specifications and 525 years of exposure reduced to nine guilty specifications and a 20-year ceiling. Twenty-two specifications placed on the dismissal track, broad Army immunity secured, no fine or forfeitures, and a dishonorable discharge.

CID's investigation drew on a matter transferred by German authorities and five National Center for Missing and Exploited Children CyberTips tied to Sony's PlayStation network. CID searched our client ... 's barracks room and storage area in September 2024. Agents carried out computers, phones, gaming consoles, an iPad, external drives, a two-terabyte drive, and even a clock containing a camera. The volume mattered because the Government still held devices it had not fully analyzed, and later discoveries had already generated additional allegations. The charge sheet kept changing because the investigation kept finding more. The Army first preferred 13 specifications in May 2025. It withdrew all 13 after reporting new conduct, returned in July with 19, and added two more in August. In October, the Army dismissed those packages without prejudice because CID was still investigating and came back with 31 specifications. This was not theoretical exposure from a dormant hard drive. New discoveries had already reset the prosecution twice and increased the case from 13 allegations to 31. Tim first mapped what the Government had collected, what CID had analyzed, and what remained inaccessible or under investigation. Bilecki Law Group reviewed the CID reports, forensic material, warrants, subpoenas, and supporting affidavits. We obtained Army funding for a defense forensic examiner to inspect the evidence in a controlled setting at CID in Germany, evaluated potential suppression issues, and retained Dr. David Johnson for sentencing. At the same time, Tim opened plea negotiations before arraignment but made clear that he would not advise acceptance until the forensic review was complete. Tim negotiated from the hard facts. The defense could offer certainty, guilty pleas, a complete stipulation, and resolution of findings without a contested trial. In return, Bilecki demanded that the Army reduce the charge sheet, accept a ceiling measured in decades rather than centuries, and close the door on another Army case based on evidence it already possessed. Even those nine specifications carried a combined maximum of 172 years. Bilecki negotiated a binding range of 10 to 20 years. The agreement required a punitive discharge and reduction to E-1, but prohibited forfeitures, a fine, or any other punishment. No matter how severe the sentencing evidence became, the judge could not impose a twenty-first year. Twenty years is severe. It was also the absolute ceiling on a case carrying a stated maximum of 525 years. Twenty-two specifications were removed from the conviction, the sentence could not exceed 20 years, evidence already in Army hands could not start a second Army prosecution, and Wisconsin did not anticipate a separate case. The judge chose the maximum inside the agreement. Bilecki had already made certain that the maximum was 20 years instead of the rest of our client's natural life.

Military law

Three-Specification Article 120 Case From Manila Port Call Narrowed to One Specification at Yokosuka GCM

May 01, 2026

OUTCOME: Eighteen months confinement. Bad-Conduct Discharge, not Dishonorable Discharge. No forfeitures. No reduction. E-4 paygrade preserved through confinement. Two Article 120 abusive sexual contact specifications withdrawn at plea.

A Navy E-4 stationed at Yokosuka and assigned to USS MILIUS was on liberty in Manila when he ended up going out with three other Sailors who did not really want him there. He was not part of their grou ... p. He was socially awkward, out of place, and trying to fit into a liberty crew where the dynamic was already set before he arrived. That shower became one of the Government's Article 120 specifications. The facts were not clean. The junior Sailor was being soaped up and scrubbed with a loofah while our client was also getting undressed. Another Sailor was part of that shower sequence before leaving for the other hotel room. The Government later charged the shower conduct as abusive sexual contact. The defense was prepared to try that allegation on consent and mistake of fact as to consent. When investigators brought our client in, they were investigating the shower and lobby allegations. During that interview, our client disclosed the hotel room oral sex. They did not learn it from the complaining witness. They did not even suspect it. Our client told them. After a cleansing warning, he gave the statement again. The Government charged all three incidents: the alleged lobby contact, the shower allegation, and the hotel room oral sex. Tim Bilecki was retained after charges were preferred. Bilecki traveled to Japan twice, including for the sentencing hearing. The Navy defense investigator also traveled to Manila, Philippines, interviewed hotel workers, obtained CCTV footage, and reconstructed what happened at the Microtel. The defense was prepared to try the case. The shower allegation had real consent and mistake of fact issues. The hotel room allegation had a different sentencing story than the Government wanted to tell because the most serious act was not reported by the complaining witness. It came from our client's own statement during an interrogation that began with lesser allegations. Our client decided he wanted to accept responsibility. The early plea posture was 3 to 5 years confinement. Bilecki negotiated the case down to one sustained Article 120 sexual assault specification. The two abusive sexual contact specifications were withdrawn and dismissed without prejudice to ripen into prejudice after appellate review if the findings and sentence are upheld. The confinement limitation in the plea agreement was the critical sentencing fight. For the sustained Article 120 sexual assault specification, the applicable sentencing parameter was 30 to 120 months confinement. Thirty months was the floor. Through the plea agreement, Bilecki negotiated a confinement limitation that allowed the Military Judge to sentence our client to as little as 1 month and no more than 30 months confinement. Because 30 months was the sentencing floor under the applicable parameter, it had to appear in the agreement. The defense turned that number into the cap. At sentencing, the Military Judge adjudged 18 months confinement, a Bad-Conduct Discharge, no forfeitures, no fines, and no reduction. Our client kept his E-4 paygrade through confinement. The two abusive sexual contact specifications were dismissed.

Military law

Bilecki Wins Full Acquittal on AF TSgt at Malmstrom in Article 80 Attempted CSAM ICAC Sting Court Martial

Apr 17, 2026

OUTCOME: Full acquittal after fully contested general court-martial to members. Not guilty of all charges and specifications.

The government ran an undercover ICAC-style sting at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, arrested a Technical Sergeant with twelve years of clean service, and charged him with three specifications of attemp ... ted sexual abuse of a child and attempted possession of child pornography. The case was tried at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana. After a fully contested general court-martial to members, the panel acquitted him of everything. When the agents asked him what "naughty" meant to him, he told them it meant a beach picture. People at the beach. The government took that word and turned it into charged conduct. Tim Bilecki did not let the government's version of this case go unchallenged. The defense team included a forensic mental-health expert who testified about our client's Gudjonsson Compliance Scale score of 19 out of 20, placing him at the extreme end of dispositional compliance. The expert walked the panel through the Reid-style interrogation techniques used against our client during three successive interviews, the last of which occurred after a midnight apprehension on approximately five hours of prior sleep. The agents used minimization, maximization, theme development, leading questions, and the threat of interrogating his pregnant wife. At one point, our client asked the agents to help him make his answers consistent. Those were not the words of a man confessing. They were the words of a man trying to comply. Cross-examination drove the case. Bilecki forced concession after concession from the government's own witnesses. The case agent admitted the operation had no intelligence basis and that she was only weeks out of training when she ran it. The undercover agent admitted that our client's definition of "naughty" was a beach picture and that the backstory the government created for the persona supported a mistaken belief as to age. The lead interviewer admitted she implanted the age during the interrogation and that our client still asked whether the persona was real even after being told. A third agent admitted it was her first operation of this kind and that she lied to our client during the interview. The defense also attacked what was missing. There was no Form 4 documenting the undercover operation. There was no Form 159 authorizing the use of the photographs. There was no legal review before the operation launched. There were violations of ICAC Operational Standard 8.6 on tone, pace, and subject matter. The government's own case agent admitted on cross-examination that ICAC standards exist to avoid a solid entrapment defense. That admission told the panel what this case really was. This was an ICAC-style sting with no intelligence basis, no complaint, no predisposition evidence, government-originated sexual content, a 31-year-old woman's photographs passed off as a child, and three coercive interrogations of an extremely compliant man. Bilecki forced the government to answer for every one of those facts in front of the panel. After a fully contested general court-martial at Malmstrom Air Force Base, the panel returned not guilty findings on all charges and specifications. Our client was fully acquitted.

Military law

Bilecki Closes BAH / OHA Fraud Investigation on Army Colonel at Torii Station with GOMOR Only

Apr 17, 2026

OUTCOME: BAH / OHA fraud investigation resolved administratively with a GOMOR. No charges preferred. No court-martial. Colonel allowed to retire.

An Army Colonel serving in Japan was under investigation for BAH and OHA fraud tied to his spouse's location, Washington State BAH, travel between the United States and Asia, and overseas housing allow ... ance issues. His retirement was on the line. If this went the wrong way, it could have ended in charges, a federal conviction, and the loss of the retirement he had spent his adult life earning. We were retained while the case was still under investigation. That mattered because once a housing case gets labeled as fraud, the government tends to flatten everything into one accusation: intentional theft. PCS orders, DA Form 5960 entries, DFAS rules, dependent travel, DBIDS records, OHA paperwork, finance emails, and family movement all get shoved into the same bucket. Finance processing told the same story. Army finance confirmed in writing that, in this situation, finance paid off the PCS orders. No lease was required. No additional documentation was required. His in-processing was completed correctly. That was a problem for the government, because fraud still requires proof that he knowingly made a false statement to obtain money he knew he was not entitled to receive. Bilecki Law Group conducted its own investigation and worked through the PCS records, finance history, dependent travel records, order amendments, DA Form 5960 issues, personnel guidance, finance guidance, DFAS questions, DTS repayment records, and the actual paper trail. We worked through Trial Counsel and the SJA channel to keep the case where the documents said it belonged: a complicated housing-allowance dispute, not a clean fraud prosecution against a senior Army officer. We then submitted a full GOMOR rebuttal packet. It was not a short character letter. It was a 74-page rebuttal built around a detailed statement of facts, legal analysis, mitigation, and eight enclosures. The packet addressed the spouse's travel history, personnel guidance, finance guidance, BAH location rules, DTS repayment records, voucher emails, and spouse employment documentation. A senior officer's retirement was on the table, and the command needed the full record, not just the fraud label. The DTS issue was handled the same way. When later guidance changed the interpretation of certain local voucher claims, he repaid the government. That did not turn the larger case into fraud. It resolved a collateral issue instead of letting it become noise inside the BAH investigation. The defense position was straightforward. Fraud requires proof of a knowingly false statement made to obtain payment. The record showed something else: PCS orders using a Washington State designated place location, finance processing based on those orders, written confirmation that in-processing was done correctly, later guidance that local finance could not simply change the BAH location without higher approval, and a family travel pattern that did not support the government's theory. No charges were preferred. No court-martial. The matter was resolved administratively through a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, and the Colonel was allowed to retire afterward.

Military law

Bilecki Wins NOT GUILTY on Both Article 120 Sexual Assault Specifications Including Etizolam Drugging Allegation on AF Captain

Apr 03, 2026

OUTCOME: Not guilty of both Article 120 sexual assault specifications, including the etizolam allegation. Guilty of Article 90 no-contact-order violation and Article 128b strangulation. Sentenced to 6 months confinement, dismissal, and a reprimand.

The government took an Air Force fighter pilot to a fully contested general court-martial at RAF Lakenheath on a theory that he drugged a Tinder date with etizolam and sexually assaulted her. The panel ... rejected both Article 120 specifications. If the government had won those charges, he was looking at a dismissal, decades of confinement, and lifetime sex offender registration. The toxicology picture had more problems than the government wanted the panel to see. The AFMES result did not just show etizolam. It also showed codeine, dihydrocodeine, norcodeine, hydrocodone, norhydrocodone, morphine, and acetone. There was surgery history. There was access to pain medication. There were messages about being "wasted" on pain relief. The government's toxicology witness could not tell the panel when the etizolam was ingested, how it was ingested, or in what quantity. She could not tie it to the whiskey. She could not turn a urine result into proof of drugging. This was not a one-week case where the defense showed up and hoped cross-examination would carry the day. We fought it for more than two years. Article 32. Reopened Article 32 proceedings. Toxicology litigation. A government continuance fight. Withdrawal and re-preferral. An R.C.M. 604 / 707 motion to dismiss. A motion to reconsider. The government first charged the military protective order allegation as Article 92. After it lost a continuance motion because it had not secured the AFMES witness it needed for the etizolam theory, it withdrew and dismissed the charges, re-preferred the case, and brought the no-contact allegation back as Article 90. We litigated that too. We built the team the case required. Georgia Winters was the forensic psychologist. Patrick Eller was the digital forensic examiner. Dean Weidman was the forensic biologist. Dr. James Norris was the forensic toxicologist. Jackie Miller was the forensic nurse examiner. The government had AFMES toxicology, USACIL DNA, NHS records, SARC records, OSI, CCTV, Ring video, WhatsApp, Signal, and years of litigation behind it. We built the defense to meet that. Cross-examination decided the Article 120 fight. We went through the timeline, the workout, the whiskey, the messages, the medication issues, the "wasted" problem, the self-selected photographs, the refusal to let OSI photograph injuries, the CICA claim, the months of continued contact, and the parts of the account that did not stay put. We cross examined the medical witnesses on what they actually found. We cross examined the forensic witnesses on what the science could and could not say. We cross examined OSI on what it did not do. The panel convicted on the Article 90 no contact order violation and the Article 128b strangulation specification. Those convictions were serious, but the government came to trial wanting sexual assault convictions and a drugging conviction. It wanted the etizolam theory. It wanted the Article 120 case. It did not get it.

Military law

Navy Chief's Eight-Specification CSAM GCM Cut to Three Specifications at Plea

Mar 13, 2026

OUTCOME: Eight specifications cut to three. Distribution specifications withdrawn. BCD, not DD. 24 months confinement.

A Navy Chief at NAS Whidbey Island was pulled into a CSAM investigation that started with a NCMEC CyberTipline report and then moved through NCIS, Meta records, Google subscriber and access records, Ki ... k data, Mega.nz links, and device extractions. The companion federal case involving another Navy Chief went very differently. That Chief was prosecuted in federal court and sentenced to 25 years in prison for production of child sexual abuse material. The DOJ release described an NCIS investigation that began with NCMEC information, Facebook Messenger evidence, searches in Italy, CSAM found on multiple devices, and surreptitious bathroom recordings involving a minor. Our client was charged in the military system, not federal court. The Government preferred an eight-specification general court-martial charge sheet across conspiracy, solicitation, attempted distribution, wrongful distribution, wrongful receiving and viewing, and two additional Article 134 specifications outside the CSAM framework. On paper, the maximum exposure ran past 90 years of confinement, with a Dishonorable Discharge risk and the higher registration consequences attached to the distribution allegations. Tim Bilecki was retained in April 2024, about eighteen months before charges were preferred. That gave the defense time to work the case before the charge sheet existed. The defense was not just reacting to specifications after preferral. It was already looking at the digital trail: what was actually sent, what was only linked, who accessed what, what the platforms recorded, what the devices showed, and what the companion witness could and could not say. The distribution allegations were the most damaging part of the military case. The Government had to prove more than bad material existed. It had to prove what a Mega.nz link actually transmitted, who had access to it, whether the file was opened or downloaded, what was on the seized devices, and whether the platform records supported distribution as charged. That was where the defense work mattered most. The plea agreement cut the case from eight specifications to three. Five specifications came off the case at plea, including both wrongful distribution specifications and the two additional Article 134 specifications outside the CSAM framework. The Government withdrew those specifications and dismissed them without prejudice to ripen into prejudice after appellate review if the findings and sentence are upheld. Tim Bilecki traveled to NAS Whidbey Island for the guilty plea and sentencing hearing. The Military Judge sentenced our client to 24 months confinement, the floor of the agreement, with a Bad-Conduct Discharge, total forfeitures, and reduction to E-1. The companion federal case ended in 25 years. This military case ended in 24 months. The original charge sheet had eight specifications. The final plea had three. The distribution specifications were withdrawn. The Dishonorable Discharge did not land.

Military law

Bilecki Closes Article 120 OSTC Investigation on Army 1LT at Camp Humphreys with OSTC Deferral; No Action Taken by Command

Mar 06, 2026

OUTCOME: OSTC deferred the covered offense. No action taken by command.

An Army lieutenant in Korea became the subject of a sexual-assault investigation after an evening with a married Soldier ended in a sexual encounter in her quarters. The defense position was that the e ... ncounter was consensual. Because the allegation was a covered offense, OSTC controlled the matter early. Tim Bilecki got involved while the investigation was still active, worked directly with OSTC, and the case ended with the allegation deferred and no action taken by command. The relationship did not begin in secret. He met her through another lieutenant, and they had spent time together before the night at issue. That evening, they were off post together, later returned to post, bought alcohol and mixers, and went to his quarters. At one point, while they were outside smoking, her husband called. She told him she was with the lieutenant and that they were drinking and watching television. Later that night, he arranged transportation back to family housing and went with her to her quarters. A sexual encounter followed. The defense position was that it was consensual. There was no immediate criminal case. Months later, he learned he was under investigation. Bilecki Law Group was retained while the matter was still in the covered-offense posture. We built the timeline, the relationship history, the communications, the drinking, the husband phone call, the return to family housing, the post-incident communications, and the delayed accusation. We then worked directly with OSTC while the matter remained there. OSTC did not take the charge forward. The matter was deferred back to command, and the command took no action.