PRO

Timothy James Bilecki's Legal Cases (543)

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

Military law

Bilecki Wins Article 120 Rape, Kidnapping, and 11 Domestic Violence Acquittals

May 12, 2023

OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY of rape. NOT GUILTY of kidnapping. NOT GUILTY on eleven of thirteen Article 128b specifications. LIO convictions on rape and two Article 128b specifications. 412 days, mandatory DD, E-3.

This was a Marine Gunnery Sergeant facing a referred general court martial in Okinawa with sixteen specifications across the most serious tiers of UCMJ exposure. Article 120 rape. Article 125 kidnappin ... g. Thirteen specifications of Article 128b domestic violence, eleven of them charged as strangulation, with a knife specification, a head-strike grievous bodily harm specification, and a digital sexual act specification charged alongside. Maximum exposure on conviction as charged: life without parole on the rape specification, plus decades of confinement on the kidnapping and the thirteen Article 128b specifications, mandatory dishonorable discharge, and federal sex offender registration. The Government alleged that across an eight month window between late 2021 and summer 2022, our client had strangled his spouse on multiple occasions, struck her with a glass bottle and his fist on a single August 2022 night, threatened her with a kitchen knife, sexually penetrated her by placing her in fear that she would be subjected to death, and held her against her will at the family residence on a separate June 2022 night. Our client retained Bilecki post referral. Tim Bilecki traveled to MCB Camp Foster, Okinawa for the contested members trial across May 2023. We tried it in full. Article 120 rape, Article 125 kidnapping, all thirteen Article 128b specifications. We did not narrow the contest. We made the Government try every charge in front of members and prove every element of every specification. The pretrial fight was the M.R.E. 412 motion. The defense moved to admit evidence of the alleged victim's extramarital relationship with an Army Master Sergeant she had met in summer 2022, the lifestyle stakes she had built around Iwakuni (two clinic and grooming businesses, the social hub of the spouse community), and a piece of physical evidence the alleged victim had created herself the day of the alleged August 2022 conduct: a set of nipple piercings she had gotten just before the encounter. The Government opposed. After Article 39(a) sessions, the Military Judge ruled in the defense's favor under M.R.E. 412(b)(3) constitutional exception. The motion put the alleged victim's motive to fabricate and the lifestyle stakes she would lose in front of the panel. The defense expert team did the rest of the pretrial work. Dr. Stephen Sweeney, forensic psychologist. William Oettinger of Metadata Forensics, digital forensics. Dr. Gabriel Holguin, consultant. Ms. Jacqueline Miller, SAFE examination and strangulation expert. The Convening Authority denied production of Ms. Miller at trial. The defense filed a Motion to Compel Production. The motion practice carried into trial. Trial ran two and a half weeks of cross examination, expert testimony, and motion practice. The cross of the alleged victim was the centerpiece. We walked her through the timeline of the affair, who she had told and who she had hidden it from, the businesses and lifestyle she had built around Iwakuni, the nipple piercings she had gotten the day of the August 2022 encounter, the bank account changes she had made the same day, and the inconsistencies between her account to Government investigators and her account on the stand. The adjudged sentence was 412 days confinement, reduction to E-3, and a Dishonorable Discharge. The LIO conviction on Charge I carried a mandatory Dishonorable Discharge by operation of law. Our client received 233 days of confinement credit. The mandatory DD and 412 days are the floor against the life-without-parole-plus exposure the Government brought to trial. For a Marine Gunnery Sergeant facing a referred general court martial on Article 120 rape, Article 125 kidnapping, and thirteen specifications of Article 128b domestic violence (eleven of them charged as strangulation), with life without parole on the rape spec and decades on the rest, the rape conviction, the kidnapping conviction, and the eleven strangulation convictions were the actual exposure. None of them survived contact with the panel.

Military law

Bilecki Holds Reserve Major's Article 134 Fraternization Investigation to NJP at the 84th Training Command

Apr 14, 2023

OUTCOME: NJP imposed. No GOMOR. No Show Cause Board. No officer elimination. Officer retained in the Reserve.

This was a Reserve Major in the 84th Training Command under an active Army investigation for Article 134 fraternization. For an O-4 in the Reserve, a substantiated fraternization allegation routes one ... of three ways: a GOMOR with permanent OMPF filing, an AR 600-8-24 officer elimination action, or a Show Cause Board. Each one ends an officer's commission. Our client retained Bilecki while the investigation was still active and before any disposition decision had been made. The matter resolved at NJP. The officer was retained in the Reserve. For an Army Reserve Major in the 84th Training Command facing an active Article 134 fraternization investigation with the GOMOR-permanent-OMPF-filing track, the AR 600-8-24 officer elimination action, and the Show Cause Board all queued behind a substantiated finding, those three career-ending vehicles were the actual exposure. None of them materialized.

Military law

No Article 120c or Article 117a Charges; Article 134 GOMOR Locally Filed; Major Promotion and Cornell MBA Career Preserved

Mar 17, 2023

OUTCOME: No Article 120c or Article 117a charges. GOMOR locally filed. No AMHRR filing. Major promotion preserved. No Article 120c conviction. No SORNA.

The Army had two chances to turn this into a career-ending case: first through Article 120c and Article 117a charges, then through a permanent GOMOR. Neither happened. An Army Signal Captain assigne ... d to Schofield Barracks was in a struggling new marriage. He met a civilian woman online in Hawaii. The relationship later became physical. He was married at the time, and he should not have been in the relationship. That part was not complicated. The criminal allegation came later. After the relationship ended, the civilian woman reported that he had recorded part of a sexual encounter without her consent and had distributed intimate images of her. She also claimed he had sent sexual photos and videos on a near daily basis through the spring and summer of 2021. Those allegations carried real exposure. Article 120c indecent recording and Article 117a wrongful distribution are not minor administrative complaints. For an Army officer, charges in that lane can mean General Court-Martial, federal conviction, dismissal from the Army, and sex offender registration consequences if convicted. Bilecki was retained in October 2021, during the CID investigation phase at Schofield Barracks, before charges were preferred and before the disposition decision had hardened. The defense focused on the digital proof. CID and the forensic extraction of the Captain's phone did not support the near daily transmission allegation. The complainant did not produce timestamped Snapchat or text records that could be tied to him and that proved the claimed distribution. The one private photo that existed had been taken with his consent and had not been distributed to a third party. The Article 120c and Article 117a investigation closed without charges. No charges were preferred at Schofield Barracks. More than a year later, the case came back in a different form. By then, the Captain was in the Army's civilian education program at Cornell University, routed through the Student Detachment at Fort Jackson. Fort Jackson opened an AR 15-6 investigation on the residual Article 134 theory: extramarital sexual conduct. The criminal allegations did not come back as charges. What remained was the affair. The AR 15-6 Investigating Officer interviewed the complainant and two of her friends. The friends were summarized by memorandum for record, but they did not sign sworn statements. The investigation found that the Captain had violated Article 134 based on the extramarital relationship. The Commanding General then issued a GOMOR and initially intended to file it permanently in the Army Military Human Resource Record. That filing decision was the fight. A permanent GOMOR would have triggered a Special Selection Review Board on his Major promotion, threatened his Resident Intermediate Level Education selection, and damaged the Cornell MBA career track the Army had already selected him for. Bilecki submitted the GOMOR rebuttal to the Commanding General at Fort Jackson in February 2023. The rebuttal did not defend the affair. The Captain accepted responsibility for the extramarital relationship and for the damage it caused. The defense attacked what the packet could not support and what the AR 15-6 skipped. The AR 15-6 did not analyze those factors. The rebuttal did. At Cornell, he earned a 3.9 GPA and Dean's List recognition in the MBA program. He had been selected for promotion to Major and selected for Resident ILE. The GOMOR filing decision would decide whether all of that continued. The Commanding General locally filed the GOMOR. The reprimand did not enter the AMHRR. The flag lifted. The Major promotion ran. The Resident ILE selection held. The Cornell MBA tour continued.

Military law

Bilecki Walks $200K Six-Charge OHA Fraud GCM Track at Camp Humphreys to a No-Confinement Special Court Martial

Mar 17, 2023

OUTCOME: Article 105 forgery dismissed. 4 of 5 Article 107 specs dismissed. Loss stipulation cut from $200K to $101K. No confinement. No punitive discharge.

This was an Army Sergeant at Camp Humphreys facing a six-charge general court martial track for approximately $200,000 in alleged Overseas Housing Allowance fraud. Maximum exposure on conviction at GCM ... ran into years of confinement, a Dishonorable Discharge, federal felony record, and total forfeitures. The Government's case was that our client had submitted three DD Form 2367 OHA applications between late 2019 and summer 2022. The first listed a Shenyang, China residence at the lawful entitlement. The second listed the same address with the rent doubled. The third listed a new Hong Kong residence supported by a Tenancy Agreement and two sworn affidavits. CID's Diplomatic Security Service investigation in Hong Kong returned facially defective documentation on the third application, and the listed landlord number reached an elderly woman who denied owning property in the building. CID advised our client of his Article 31 rights in October 2022. He refused interview through counsel. Our client retained Bilecki about ten weeks before the Government preferred charges in February 2023. CID's DSS return on the Hong Kong application showed the third application was facially defective. The Shenyang documentation on the first two applications had a different documentary character (Chinese-jurisdiction lease forms with verifiable counterparties) and was not exposed by the same DSS work. The Government's own investigative file supported a narrower charge sheet than the one Trial Counsel was building. The defense walked Trial Counsel through the documentary distinction between the third application and the first two before charges were preferred. The motive context went up at the same time: the family hardship of a stage IV cancer diagnosis in our client's mother and an extended COVID-era separation from his parents. Tim Bilecki traveled to Camp Humphreys, Korea for the trial. For an Army Sergeant at Camp Humphreys facing a six-charge general court martial track for $200,000 in alleged OHA fraud with Dishonorable Discharge exposure, federal felony exposure, and years of confinement on the line, the federal felony conviction at GCM and the punitive discharge were the actual exposure. Neither materialized.

Military law

No Court-Martial Charges Preferred After Army Reserve Officer Left COVID Quarantine to Care for Sick Mother

Feb 24, 2023

OUTCOME: No court-martial charges preferred. GOMOR permanently filed in AMHRR.

An Army Reserve First Lieutenant tested positive for COVID during annual training in New Jersey and was placed in quarantine barracks at the 78th Training Division. Soon after, he learned that his elde ... rly mother in San Francisco had also tested positive for COVID and had become very ill. He believed she needed immediate help. Bilecki was retained the day after he returned. For an Army officer, this could have gone much worse. Leaving annual training without authority, while assigned to quarantine, and then failing to be candid with command about his location gave the Army a straightforward unauthorized absence case. The defense work kept the case from becoming a court-martial. No court-martial charges were preferred. The case was handled by GOMOR. The rebuttal did not deny the conduct. The Lieutenant accepted responsibility for leaving quarantine without authority, acknowledged that he should have told his chain of command, and admitted that he was not transparent about his location when asked. The defense asked the Commanding General to file the GOMOR locally instead of permanently. The rebuttal also gave the Commanding General the rest of the officer's record. He commissioned in 2017 after graduating from Claremont McKenna College, where he earned degrees in economics and finance, received a four-year Presidential ROTC scholarship, and played varsity football. In the Army Reserve, he served as Executive Officer and later Commanding Officer of the 316th AG Detachment at Fort Totten, New York. In his civilian career, he worked at Goldman Sachs, earned early promotion to Vice President in Derivative Sales, and later moved to Citadel Securities. He also raised more than $16,000 through a 22-mile ruck march for RAINN. The Commanding General permanently filed the GOMOR in the Army Military Human Resource Record.

Military law

Racial Harassment GOMOR Rescinded in Full After Maintenance Shop Noose Allegation During 1st Cavalry Division Poland Rotation

Feb 17, 2023

OUTCOME: Racial harassment GOMOR rescinded in full. No AMHRR filing. Officer career preserved.

An Army First Lieutenant on a 1st Cavalry Division rotational deployment to Poland was accused of putting a noose around a Black Soldier's neck. The AR 15-6 packet did not support that version. The ... allegation started in a maintenance control shop. The command alleged that the Lieutenant tied a hangman's knot, placed it near a Black junior Soldier's neck, tied the Soldier's wrists, and tried to walk him around the shop like a dog. The GOMOR accused the Lieutenant of racial harassment, bullying, degrading treatment, and targeting Black Soldiers under his supervision. The conduct occurred during the Poland rotation. The GOMOR decision and rebuttal process ran through Fort Hood, Texas. The defense did not pretend the rope incident was good judgment. A junior officer playing with rope and knots in a maintenance shop, around junior Soldiers, is asking for trouble. Once the word "noose" enters the allegation, the case becomes radioactive. But the rebuttal separated what actually happened from what the investigation assumed happened. The rope had been in the maintenance shop before the allegation. Soldiers had been using it for knot practice. The Lieutenant and another Soldier had been practicing knots as part of their interest in schools and training pipelines where rope work and rigging skills mattered. The rope was not brought into the shop that day to send a racial message. It was already part of the shop routine. The Lieutenant admitted one core fact: he placed rope loops around the junior Soldier's wrists during the knot-practice horseplay. He denied putting a noose around the Soldier's neck, denied walking him around like a dog, and denied any racial motive. Just before the incident with the Black Soldier, the same wrist demonstration had been done with another Soldier who was white. That fact was central. The same rope, the same kind of wrist demonstration, and the same shop horseplay had just been used with a white Soldier. The later desk sequence also mattered. The junior Soldier had come over because he needed help with a G-Army issue. After the rope horseplay ended and a warrant officer told everyone to stop messing around, the Lieutenant went to help the Soldier at his terminal while still holding the rope. The defense showed that the rope or knot came near the Soldier's shoulder or neck area during that G-Army assistance, not as part of a mock lynching. Bilecki was retained after the GOMOR was issued. The defense requested more time, reviewed the AR 15-6 packet, went through the witness statements, compared the text messages to the alleged timeline, and reconstructed the maintenance shop sequence. The rebuttal did not ask the Commanding General to bless the Lieutenant's judgment. It asked him not to permanently brand a young officer as a racist based on an AR 15-6 packet that left too many contradictions unresolved. The defense also put supporting witness statements in front of the Commanding General. The Soldier involved in the knot practice confirmed the wrist demonstration and did not describe it as racial. NCOs and warrant officers who worked around the Lieutenant did not support the idea that he was racist or targeted Black Soldiers. Other leaders and peers described him as hardworking, mission-focused, and supportive of Soldiers across race and background. Bad judgment is not racism. The defense asked the Commanding General to rescind the GOMOR or, at minimum, locally file it or issue a lesser corrective measure. The Commanding General rescinded the GOMOR in full. For a young Army officer accused of racial harassment involving a noose allegation, that decision was the career-saving result. A permanently filed GOMOR would have followed him into his AMHRR, damaged promotion and retention, and likely started the officer elimination cascade that comes with a permanently filed racial harassment reprimand. None of that happened.

Military law

6105 Imposed After MRF-Darwin Bar Comment; No Administrative Separation, No Further Adverse Action

Feb 17, 2023

OUTCOME: 6105 imposed. No administrative separation. No further adverse action. SNCO continued in service.

A Marine Gunnery Sergeant deployed with VMM-268 as part of Marine Rotational Force-Darwin made one inappropriate off-duty comment to a female lieutenant at a bar in Darwin. The command then built the 6 ... 105 packet around broader allegations of sexual harassment, disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer, violation of the Prohibited Activities and Conduct Order, and fraternization. The admitted comment happened at Shenanigans in Darwin. He was off duty, drinking with other Marines, and went to the bar to get another drink. A female lieutenant was at the bar. He asked what she was drinking and whether he could pay for it. She declined. After he got his drink, he told her, "Ma'am, I just wanted to let you know that I think you are very pretty." He then grabbed his drink and sat back down. The interaction ended there. That comment should not have been made. He was a Gunnery Sergeant. She was a lieutenant. Even off duty, even in a bar, and even in a deployment liberty environment, a staff noncommissioned officer does not need to comment on a junior officer's appearance. The rebuttal did not pretend otherwise. But the 6105 packet did not stop with that comment. The command also alleged that he made disrespectful public sexual comments about his commanding officer, repeatedly made unwelcome comments to the female lieutenant, made sexual comments about junior Marines, and fraternized with a female captain at a dance club. Bilecki was retained in September 2022, during the command investigation phase and before the 6105 was finalized. That timing mattered. The defense was able to help shape the 6105 rebuttal before the command locked the case into the broader version of events. The rebuttal admitted the one off-duty comment, took responsibility for the lapse in judgment, documented the corrective action he had taken, and then denied the unsupported allegations the command had layered around it. He denied making derogatory sexual comments about his commanding officer. He described his commanding officer as an outstanding leader who took care of Marines and their families, and he stated that during his outbound interview he told her that he admired her leadership and appreciated what she had done for his family. According to the rebuttal, the commanding officer told him he was the best Gunnery Sergeant she had seen in 27 years of service. That was also part of the rebuttal. Since leaving the deployment, he had cut out alcohol completely, gone back to school, gone back to church, refocused on his family, and accepted that he had put himself in a situation that could damage his name, his reputation, his career, and his family. The defense work kept the case tied to what could actually be supported: one inappropriate comment to a female lieutenant at a bar. The broader allegations of sexual harassment, disrespect toward the commanding officer, PAC Order violations, and fraternization did not move into administrative separation or further adverse action. The rebuttal also put his Marine Corps career in front of the command. He had served more than fifteen years, completed three combat deployments to the Middle East, completed seven additional non-combat deployments, and held the highest level of qualifications in his MOS. The command was not looking at a junior Marine with no history and no record. It was looking at a career Gunnery Sergeant whose service record had to be weighed against the conduct actually supported by the 6105 packet. The command imposed the 6105. But the broader allegations did not go further. No administrative separation was initiated. No further adverse action was taken. The Gunnery Sergeant continued in service.

Military law

Bilecki Keeps Army Captain's GOMOR Out of AMHRR After Tamiok Strike Survey

Feb 03, 2023

OUTCOME: GOMOR locally filed. No AMHRR filing. Officer career preserved.

The Army accused a prior enlisted Captain assigned to 10th Support Group at Torii Station of missing movement during the Tamiok Strike Initial Site Survey in Papua New Guinea because he was drunk, hung ... over, or otherwise incapacitated in his hotel room. Bilecki was retained during the AR 15-6 investigation phase, before the findings were finalized. That timing mattered. The defense was able to attack the allegation while the investigation was still being shaped, not after the command had already locked itself into a final GOMOR filing decision. The Captain had been pulled into the site survey at the last minute. At the time, he was already planning North Wind, assisting with Talisman Saber, and handling current operations requirements. His assignment for Tamiok Strike was movement control. He was not sent to Papua New Guinea to own the full sustainment plan, identify life support requirements, or survey every training site. The defense focused first on tasking. The site survey team split across multiple locations. One group was going to Goldie River Training Depot. The Captain's work was tied to the Air Terminal Wing, the entry point for personnel and equipment moving into Papua New Guinea. Before the Goldie River trip, he coordinated with the team lead that she would handle Goldie River and he would handle the Air Terminal Wing movement control work. The next morning, the Goldie River group got on the bus. The Captain was not on it. A field grade officer later found him asleep in his hotel room. That became the allegation. The defense showed that he was not assigned to be on that bus. Later that day, the Captain worked the Air Terminal Wing mission. He mapped the logistics profile, theater gateway and reception requirements, C-130 runway considerations, pallet and offload zones, and the Tamiok Strike deployment timeline. He also built sustainment and contracting recommendations outside his assigned movement control tasking. He briefed that work to the group the same day. The defense then attacked the intoxication theory. The field grade officer did not document an odor of alcohol. He did not test him. He did not ask him to confirm whether he had been drinking. He did not inspect the bottle near the bed, which was a 64-ounce Yeti / Hydro Flask water bottle. He also drew meaning from a hotel air freshener on the desk. The Captain had received the air freshener from the hotel and used it to freshen the room. The defense also gave the command the medical context. The Captain had been sick and exhausted during the trip. After returning to Okinawa, he tested positive for COVID. The AR 15-6 rebuttal explained the actual movement control tasking and the work he completed. When the Investigating Officer asked follow-up questions, Bilecki submitted a supplemental response addressing the Hydro Flask, his condition when found, his flu symptoms, the later COVID test, and the alcohol-related questions. When the GOMOR was later issued, Bilecki submitted a separate GOMOR rebuttal to the Commanding General asking for local filing. The defense also pushed back against the broader character attack that grew out of the investigation, including unsupported claims about hotel bar conduct, drug use, and other misconduct based on secondhand assumptions and unidentified witnesses. The Captain was a prior enlisted officer with more than eighteen years of service, six deployments, and more than 500 combat patrols. He had served as an 11B Infantryman before commissioning, deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, served in Korea and Poland, and built a career doing hard Army jobs in hard places. The Commanding General locally filed the GOMOR. The reprimand did not go into the AMHRR.

Military law

Bilecki Wins Withdrawal of Assault Charges and Chapter 10 at Camp Humphreys

Dec 02, 2022

OUTCOME: All charges dismissed. Chapter 10 Discharge in Lieu of Trial approved. No federal conviction.

An Army Staff Sergeant at Camp Humphreys was facing a referred general court-martial on three Article 128 assault specifications arising from the Camp Humphreys Super Gym brawl in summer 2021, plus an ... Additional Charge under Article 104a fraudulent enlistment based on five undisclosed prior civilian arrests on his 2019 reenlistment paperwork. Maximum exposure on the lead Article 128 specification (aggravated assault inflicting grievous bodily harm) at general court-martial: decades of confinement, a punitive discharge, federal felony record. The Article 104a specification carried federal felony exposure of its own. It was summer 2021 in Korea. USFK gathering restrictions were still in force. Roughly a hundred and fifty Soldiers, possibly more, were at an outdoor party at the gazebo outside the Super Gym at Camp Humphreys. Military Police on scene told attendees the gathering went against the COVID guidelines and documented the warning. The Soldiers were not supposed to be there. The brawl that broke out in the middle of it was on video. The Government alleged that our client was the assailant on the video, that he had struck an SGT in the face with a Hennessy bottle, and that the SGT had been kicked and stomped while on the ground in the fetal position. The alleged victim's documented injuries were a forehead laceration, a fractured orbital floor, and damage to eyesight. Multiple Government witnesses identified our client by his street name, his physical description, the large silver chain he was alleged to have been wearing, and his barracks room number. One Government witness identified him from a photo lineup. Then the Government found the prior arrests. Our client retained Bilecki after the case was referred to GCM and trial was set. We filed two motions ahead of the November 2022 motions session. The Motion to Sever Charges argued that the Article 104a charge could not be tried in front of the same panel that would decide the Article 128 specifications without poisoning the panel. The flyer for an Article 128 GCM that listed five undisclosed civilian arrests for violent offenses, four of them violent assaults, would prejudice the panel into seeing our client as a violent recidivist before being sworn, even though every one of those arrests had been dismissed and none had resulted in conviction. The Government opposed severance but conceded the core point: the prior arrests were not admissible to prove the charged conduct. The motions practice drove the dismissal. In December 2022, with both motions briefed and the Government already conceding evidentiary ground on each one, the Convening General signed an R.C.M. 604 order withdrawing and dismissing Specification 2 (the aggravated assault with a dangerous weapon, the bottle to the head of the SGT) and Specification 3 (the aggravated assault inflicting grievous bodily harm, the orbital fracture and eyesight damage). The Government walked away from its two heaviest specifications before trial. What remained was Specification 1, the Mojitos sucker punch, and the Article 104a fraudulent enlistment specification. Six days later, in mid-December 2022, we submitted a Chapter 10 Request for Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial. The Convening General approved it. All remaining specifications were dismissed without prejudice. The Soldier was discharged Under Other Than Honorable Conditions and reduced to E-1. No transfer to the Individual Ready Reserve. No federal conviction. No findings. For an Army Staff Sergeant at Camp Humphreys with a referred general court-martial, three Article 128 specifications including aggravated assault inflicting grievous bodily harm, an Article 104a fraudulent enlistment Additional Charge built on five undisclosed prior civilian arrests, punitive discharge exposure on the lead Article 128 specification, federal felony record on the line, and a January 2023 trial date set, that was a different ending than the one the Government was driving toward.

Military law

Bilecki Walks AFOSI Article 120 Sexual Assault Allegation Off Air Force Cyber TSgt's LOR at Fort Gordon

Nov 04, 2022

OUTCOME: Court martial charges never preferred. Article 120 framing stripped on rebuttal. Original LOR withdrawn and replaced with narrowed Articles 134 / 128 LOR. No NJP, no AdSep, no demotion.

This was an Air Force Technical Sergeant at Fort Gordon, a fluent Japanese linguist and intelligence analyst with a 5-and-a-half year Air Force career, under an AFOSI investigation for Article 120 abus ... ive sexual contact, Article 128 assault, and Article 134 unprofessional relationship. Maximum exposure on a referred Article 120 abusive sexual contact conviction at general court martial: years of confinement, a mandatory punitive discharge ceiling, federal sex offender registration, and a career endpoint at the next promotion board. The case did not start as a sexual assault. For seven months, our client and his Flight Commander, an Air Force Captain, had been in a documented improper relationship. It started at a December 2020 squadron Christmas party. Through the spring and into the summer of 2021, the two had been in regular Slack and LinkedIn exchanges and deep workplace conversations about Japan and her marriage. On a mid July 2021 morning before sunrise, the two had a private hour long walk outside her subdivision that ended with hand holding and a kiss. The Captain had told our client about a prior LOR she had received during a deployment to Djibouti for the same kind of conduct. She told our client her marriage was over and that she was wrestling with the idea of a future with him. That report was the basis for the AFOSI investigation, the AFOSI ROI, and the Squadron Commander's August 2022 Letter of Reprimand citing Articles 120, 128, and 134. Our client retained Bilecki and Benjamin Gold in September 2021. Notices of Representation went the same month. The defense rebuttal walked the documentary record alongside the AFOSI ROI. The Captain's saved Slack messages from the night before the report were on the record. She had invited our client to meet her early the next morning: "If you're lucky you might find me walking the neighborhood dark and early tomorrow if you need someone to talk to." She had told the AFOSI Special Agent that the morning meeting was something she had mentioned at work as a casual walk invitation. The Slack record said otherwise. She had also failed to surface that invitation in the document she submitted to AFOSI. The forensic record did not match her account either. Our client had recently torn his ACL and could not run. Per AFOSI's own description of the surveillance footage the Captain herself provided, she had not been wearing a shirt at the time she alleged our client had reached under one. Her account of the alleged conduct shifted across her statement to her husband, her statement to her Squadron Commander, her statement to the Master Sergeant who was her go-between, and her sworn statement to AFOSI. We put it in front of the Squadron Commander. No NJP. No court martial. No administrative separation. No demotion. For an Air Force Cyber TSgt at Fort Gordon under an AFOSI Article 120 abusive sexual contact ROI built on a senior officer's report against a junior NCO, with mandatory punitive discharge exposure on referral and federal sex offender registration on conviction, the Article 120 framing was the actual exposure. By November 2022 it was off the LOR.