PRO

Timothy James Bilecki's Legal Cases (543)

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

Military law

5th Special Forces Group Officer's GOMOR Rescinded in Full

Apr 15, 2022

OUTCOME: GOMOR rescinded in full.

A 5th Special Forces Group lieutenant gave a senior NCO $9,000, a place to stay, and his weekends so the NCO could see his children during a brutal divorce. The Army called it fraternization. The ... First Lieutenant was serving as the Executive Officer for a support company at Fort Campbell. The senior NCO was in his company. He was going through a contested divorce, dealing with a protective order, struggling financially, and fighting to maintain supervised visitation with his children. He had legal fees, investigator fees, family stress, and a bank account that had gone negative. He was also a combat veteran with serious personal strain from the divorce and custody fight. The First Lieutenant got too involved. He gave the senior NCO roughly $9,000 through Venmo and PayPal. He let the senior NCO stay at his apartment while he stayed elsewhere. He supervised visits between the senior NCO and his children. He later wrote a memorandum on unit letterhead describing what he had personally observed during those visits and supporting the senior NCO's fitness as a father. He did all of it because he thought he was helping a Soldier in crisis. The process was wrong. The motive was not. The AR 15-6 investigation started much uglier than it ended. The allegations included a prohibited relationship, wrongful use of cocaine, and solicitation of prostitution. The drug and prostitution allegations came from the senior NCO's estranged wife during the divorce. She later retracted those allegations and described them as statements made out of anger and frustration during an emotionally taxing divorce. The Investigating Officer found no evidence that the First Lieutenant used cocaine and no evidence that he solicited prostitution. What remained was the prohibited relationship allegation. The Investigating Officer found limited evidence that the relationship could be viewed as partial treatment. But the same Investigating Officer did not find that the First Lieutenant had given the senior NCO preferential treatment. He did not find that the relationship had negatively affected the First Lieutenant's performance as Executive Officer. He found that the First Lieutenant exercised poor judgment and became overly involved in the senior NCO's divorce, but that he appeared to be acting out of genuine concern for the senior NCO's well being. The Investigating Officer recommended no punitive or adverse administrative action. The Group Commander modified the findings. He added a finding that the financial transfer violated AR 600-20, removed the recommendation for no adverse action, and forwarded the case for adverse administrative action. The Commanding General issued a GOMOR on the fraternization theory only. The cocaine and prostitution allegations were not part of the GOMOR. Bilecki submitted the GOMOR rebuttal to the Commanding General at Fort Bragg. The rebuttal did not pretend the First Lieutenant handled everything correctly. He should have elevated the issue through the chain of command. He should have used Army systems already built for financial distress, housing problems, family crisis, and visitation issues. He should not have tried to solve the senior NCO's divorce crisis himself. But the rebuttal made clear what this was not. This was not corruption. It was not favoritism. It was not exploitation. It was not personal gain. It was not a sexual relationship. It was a young officer with access to money, a strong instinct to take care of Soldiers, and poor judgment about how far he could go before help became a prohibited relationship. The $9,000 was given as a gift, not a loan. There was no interest. No repayment demand. No contract. No business relationship. No proof that the First Lieutenant received anything in return. The senior NCO's own statement said the money was given to help him get out of debt and pay bills connected to the divorce. The Commanding General rescinded the GOMOR in full. No AMHRR filing. No local filing. No adverse administrative action.

Military law

Full Acquittal on Article 120 Abusive Sexual Contact and Article 120c Indecent Exposure at Fort Knox Members Trial

Apr 01, 2022

OUTCOME: Full acquittal. Not guilty of all charges and specifications. No SORNA. No federal conviction. No punitive discharge.

An Army Sergeant at a Fort Knox training course was charged with Article 120 abusive sexual contact and Article 120c indecent exposure after another Soldier claimed he woke up in an open bay barracks t ... o our client touching him. That was the allegation. That was not what happened. The night started with Soldiers from the course drinking together after duty. The complaining witness, our client, and a female Soldier the complaining witness was involved with, his "battle boo," were part of the same group. The conversation turned sexual. There was talk about the complaining witness, our client, and the female Soldier hooking up together. The threesome conversation was not invented later by the defense. It existed before the allegation, and there were text messages that put it in the record. The sequence did not end with talk. The group moved through the night, and the complaining witness and our client ended up in the car. In the car, they talked about hooking up, and the complaining witness tried to get oral sex from our client. That fact changed the case. The Government wanted the members to believe that the later allegation in the squad bay came out of nowhere. The defense showed the members what came before it. Before trial, Bilecki fought the M.R.E. 412 issue and won the ruling that mattered. The Military Judge allowed the defense to present evidence that the complaining witness had expressed interest in a threesome involving our client and the female Soldier shortly before the charged events. That ruling let the defense show the sexual context of the night and explain why our client believed the later encounter was consensual. At trial, Bilecki cross examined the complaining witness on the drinking, the sexual conversation, the threesome discussion, the car, the attempted hookup, and the later allegation in the open bay barracks. The complaining witness denied the threesome conversation, but the text messages showed the issue had been raised before. That denial mattered. The Government's case depended on the members accepting the complaining witness's version while ignoring the parts of the night that made that version hard to believe. The battle buddy witness did not fix the case for the Government. He had not seen the alleged contact. He had not heard a struggle. He had not heard a verbal confrontation. He was not there for the key moment. The text traffic also hurt the Government because it showed the threesome issue predated trial and was not something the defense invented after the fact. The defense tried the case on consent and mistake of fact as to consent. The Government wanted orientation to do work that evidence did not do. The members were not asked to decide whether the complaining witness was straight or whether our client was gay. They were asked whether the Government had proven the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt after hearing the whole night. The members found our client not guilty of every charge and specification.

Military law

Bilecki Wins Full Acquittal for Army SGT After M.R.E. 412 Reveals Wife's Affair

Dec 31, 2021

OUTCOME: Full acquittal. Not guilty of all charges and specifications.

The government took an Army Sergeant from Torii Station, Okinawa to a fully contested general court-martial at Schofield Barracks on six charges spanning six different Articles of the UCMJ. Article 120 ... sexual assault. Article 127 extortion. Article 128 battery. Article 128b domestic violence. Article 130 stalking. Article 134 indecent language. The headline allegation was that the Sergeant had threatened to expose his wife's affair unless she performed oral sex. By any measure, this was a career-ending charge sheet. There was just one problem with the prosecution's case. The wife had been in an ongoing sexual relationship with an Air Force Technical Sergeant during the same months as the charged conduct. Same window. Same town. Same Article 120 timeframe. She was still married to our client and sleeping with another service member, and the other airman's chain of command knew about it because he had self reported. Once the wife realized the affair was about to surface, the allegations followed. The "extortion" theory was that our client had threatened to tell her parents and her command about the cheating. The Article 120 was a recharacterization of a marital sex life that had ended exactly the way the marriage ended, with someone leaving. The stalking and battery charges were tacked on for impact. Our client retained Bilecki after the GCM referral, with trial set at Schofield Barracks. We filed and litigated an M.R.E. 412 motion to admit evidence of the wife's ongoing affair with another service member. The wife's Special Victim Counsel fought it. The prosecution fought it. After a closed Article 39(a) session, the Military Judge granted the motion. The panel was going to hear that the wife had been sleeping with another service member during the same months as the charged conduct, while still married to our client. That single ruling changed what the panel was going to hear. Tim Bilecki traveled to Schofield Barracks, Hawaii for the contested general court-martial. The cross-examination of the wife was the centerpiece. We walked her through the timeline of the affair, when it started, who she had told, who she had hidden it from, and what she stood to lose if it surfaced inside her command. By the time the cross was over, the panel had heard her own account of the motive to fabricate. The cross of the other airman put the affair on the record from his side, including the self report he had made to his own chain of command. We took the lead investigator through the holes in the timeline and the gaps in the documentary record the prosecution had built around the "extortion" theory. The closing brought the panel back to the M.R.E. 412 ruling and the ground truth it surfaced: a marriage ending mid-affair is not a sexual assault. The "extortion" theory required the panel to believe that a husband who had just discovered his wife's affair was the one shaking her down. The "stalking" theory required them to ignore years of marriage. The Article 120 required them to ignore everything else. The panel did not.

Military law

Navy Chief Receives General Discharge at Administrative Separation Board After Summary Court-Martial Conviction; OTH Avoided

Dec 31, 2021

OUTCOME: General discharge at administrative separation board. No OTH. After Summary Court-Martial conviction.

A female Navy Chief assigned to USS PORT ROYAL was accused of having a sexual relationship with a junior male Sailor onboard the ship. Another Sailor reported the relationship. The command had video sh ... owing the Chief and the junior Sailor having sex. When command questioned her, she did not know the video existed. She denied the sexual relationship, denied fraternization, and denied an improper relationship. Command later confronted her with the video. There was also a prior fraternization NJP from years earlier on another ship. That made the administrative separation board much harder. This was not a first-time lapse viewed in isolation. The Navy had the current relationship, the false denial, the video, the prior fraternization history, and the Summary Court-Martial conviction. Bilecki was retained after the Summary Court-Martial, at the administrative separation notification phase. By then, the Chief had already been convicted under Article 92 and Article 134, punished, and reduced from Chief Petty Officer to First Class Petty Officer. She had already lost her anchors. At the administrative separation board, basis was essentially conceded. The defense still fought for retention. If the board was going to separate her, the fight became characterization: General discharge or Other Than Honorable. The defense presented the part of her Navy career that still mattered. She reported to USS PORT ROYAL in July 2019 after prior sea duty. The ship needed a Boatswain's Mate Chief, and she took over Deck Division during a hard certification cycle. She helped move the division through MOB-S, search and rescue, and aviation certification. Her Sailors qualified. Her junior officers developed. Her division produced. She had made Chief young, served consecutive sea tours, and built her career at sea. She was a Boatswain's Mate who wanted to work, wanted to be underway, and wanted to lead Sailors. The board also had to account for the punishment already imposed at Summary Court-Martial: conviction, reduction from E-7 to E-6, and the public loss of her anchors. The board separated her. But it awarded a General discharge, not an Other Than Honorable characterization. In a case with video evidence, a prior fraternization NJP, a false denial to command, a Summary Court-Martial conviction, and a reduction from Chief Petty Officer to First Class Petty Officer already imposed, the General discharge was the result that mattered.

Military law

Army LTC Avoids AMHRR Filing After USCENTCOM Workplace Investigation

Dec 17, 2021

OUTCOME: GOMOR locally filed for 18 months. No AMHRR filing. No SSRB. 23 year career preserved.

The GOMOR was issued. The fight was where it would be filed. An Army Lieutenant Colonel serving in the USCENTCOM J-2 at MacDill Air Force Base was pulled into an AR 15-6 workplace investigation invo ... lving the culture inside the J-2 section. The investigation was larger than him. It involved the section, the Colonel above him, and allegations that the workplace had become toxic or hostile. The Investigating Officer interviewed nineteen personnel and reviewed twenty-five witness statements from a prior commander's inquiry. The toxic or hostile workplace allegation was founded. The unlawful gender discrimination allegation was unfounded. For the Lieutenant Colonel, the harassment finding came down to two comments involving a subordinate field grade officer. One was a promotion and salute joke that he believed was ordinary Army humor. The other was a blunt comment after repeated problems with a PowerPoint product. He said words to the effect of asking whether she wanted him to "kick your ass." He later explained that the comment came from frustration, not intent to threaten or harass, and that he immediately tried to explain that was not what he meant. The Investigating Officer recommended a General Officer Memorandum of Record and Consideration of Others training. The Army Element Commander issued a full GOMOR. A permanent filing in the Army Military Human Resource Record would have been devastating. For a field grade officer, an AMHRR filed GOMOR can trigger a Special Selection Review Board, derail future promotion, and start the officer elimination cascade. This Lieutenant Colonel had served for 23 years. He had combat deployments, a clean disciplinary record, and a career that could have ended with one filing decision. Bilecki was retained during the AR 15-6 phase, before the GOMOR filing decision. The defense first attacked the investigation record. The AR 15-6 response did not pretend the comments were perfect. The Lieutenant Colonel accepted that the second comment should have been handled better. But the defense put the comments back into the actual workplace sequence. The subordinate field grade officer had documented performance and communication issues. She missed key products. She struggled with the battle rhythm for the branch's intelligence work. She had been reminded about mandatory physical training. She signed the initial counseling. She received midpoint counseling on the same work product issues later used to frame the conflict. The defense also showed what the complaining officer's account did not show: the Lieutenant Colonel had tried to coach her, tried to build rapport, offered professional development opportunities, and adjusted his approach after being told to soften his leadership style. The witness package was critical. Bilecki submitted sworn statements from officers, civilians, contractors, and senior enlisted personnel who had worked with the Lieutenant Colonel. They described him as blunt, high expectation, operationally focused, and effective. They did not describe him as a toxic leader. Several said they would work for him again. The defense also separated him from the broader section leadership problem. The AR 15-6 was about the J-2 workplace environment. The section chief above him had his own issues in the investigation. The Lieutenant Colonel served under that section chief, but the witness statements and documentary record showed that his leadership was different. He was demanding. He was direct. He pushed the mission. But the people who worked with him described an open door leader who listened, solved problems, and held the team to mission standards. After the GOMOR was issued, Bilecki submitted the GOMOR rebuttal to the Army Element Commander. The rebuttal asked for rescission or, at minimum, local filing. The Army Element Commander locally filed the GOMOR for 18 months. The reprimand did not enter the AMHRR. No Special Selection Review Board was triggered. The 23 year career was preserved.

Military law

Bilecki Tries Article 120b GCM at Wheeler on 60-Year Charge Sheet; 18-Month Adjudged Sentence

Nov 05, 2021

OUTCOME: Adjudged eighteen months confinement against a sixty-year maximum and a ten-year Government plea offer floor. Appellate rights preserved.

The government charged an Army Sergeant First Class with four specifications of Article 120b sexual abuse of a child against his adoptive daughter. Maximum confinement on the charge sheet ran to sixty ... years. The Government's best pretrial offer required a guilty plea on all four specifications with a confinement floor of ten years. The defense did not take the offer. After a fully contested seven-day general court-martial at Wheeler, the panel adjudged eighteen months. The case turned on Reactive Attachment Disorder. The alleged victim had been pulled from a home of alcohol and drug abuse at seven months old, bounced through seven foster placements before age five, and was diagnosed with RAD before our client and his wife ever adopted her. RAD is a DSM-5 diagnosis specific to children traumatized before age five. The clinical literature describes RAD children as seeking control rather than closeness, highly manipulative, prone to triangulation, and prone to false allegations against caregivers. The RAD treatment community recognizes false accusations against adoptive parents as a known clinical pattern. That diagnosis predated the allegation by years. That is what the defense had to put in front of the panel. That was the case the defense had to take to a panel. Our client retained Bilecki five days after the CID referral. We built the RAD foundation pre-charging. The R.C.M. 405(k) supplemental matters at the Article 32 put the RAD diagnosis, the documented manipulation history, the contradicting versions of the disclosure, and the Colorado motive in front of the Preliminary Hearing Officer. The PHO Report quoted the defense framework directly. The Government denied the defense request for a forensic counseling expert. We litigated under R.C.M. 703(d) and won a Court Order from the Military Judge compelling expert funding. Ms. Amy B. Swigart, MS, an attachment disorder specialist with over twenty years treating RAD children and a Pennsylvania Juvenile Court parole officer who trains judges and law enforcement on RAD, was appointed as defense expert. The Military Judge granted the Government's M.R.E. 404(b) motion in limine and ruled the deleted Messenger messages, the parental-control phone reset, and the "I deserve what's about to happen" text admissible as common scheme and consciousness of guilt. The defense lost that motion. We had to win the panel despite the loss. Tim Bilecki traveled to Wheeler Army Airfield, Hawaii for the contested general court-martial. Our client elected an enlisted panel. Trial ran seven days. Cross-examination of the alleged victim drove the case. We walked her through every version of the disclosure: the disclosure to her sister in Colorado, the CID interview, the Children's Justice Center forensic interview, and her trial testimony. The pre-ejaculate detail that appeared in one version and not the next. The "pink silicon device" that morphed across tellings. The shower entry that was declined in one account and completed in another. The implausibility of the Walmart trip timeline against the charged window. The cross of the CID Special Agent walked the panel through the investigation defects, including a key interview with our client's spouse the agent did not record despite recording every other interview in the case. The Government's rebuttal expert had never previously testified as an expert. On cross, the defense walked him through the alleged victim's seven-foster-home history of severe early deprivation. He conceded the RAD diagnosis was reasonable on the documentary record. The Government's own expert had given the panel the foundation the defense had been building since pre-charging. Eighteen months against a sixty-year maximum exposure. Eighteen months against a Government pretrial offer floor of ten years. By trying the case, the defense beat the Government's best plea by more than eight years and preserved appellate rights that a guilty plea would have waived. This was not the safe play. It was the right play.

Military law

Bilecki Defeats Recharged Article 120 Allegations; Both Specifications Dismissed

Oct 29, 2021

OUTCOME: Both Article 120 specifications dismissed. SPCM plea on non-SORNA Article 92 / 128 specs only. 30 day confinement cap. No federal sex offender registration.

This was a Marine the Government was determined to put on the federal sex offender registry, even after three of his own officers had already heard the same Article 120 allegation under oath and found ... there was not even a preponderance of evidence to support it. A year earlier, our client had won an administrative separation Board of Inquiry on an Article 120 sexual assault allegation arising from a winter night with a fellow Marine in the barracks at Camp Foster, Okinawa. Three Marine officers heard the case. The Board found no basis. The Marine was retained on active duty. Preponderance of the evidence is the lowest standard in military justice. The Government had not met it. The Government recharged the same Article 120 specifications anyway. In early 2021, our client transferred to Camp Lejeune. He was at the time being administratively separated under Other Designated Physical and Mental Conditions protocols for an anxiety and panic disorder he had been diagnosed with and was being treated for. A few weeks after his arrival at Lejeune, he attended a going away party with other Marines, became severely intoxicated, and ended up in a fellow PFC's barracks room professing his feelings for her. She declined. He left. Later that night he sent her texts of the same sentiments. She asked him to leave her alone. He did, and went silent. She reported the next day. The Government took the Camp Lejeune incident, recharged the Okinawa Article 120 specifications it had already lost on at the BOI, added an Article 92 sexual harassment specification, and referred the whole package as a general court martial. Our client retained Bilecki the week the GCM referral hit. We litigated through the Article 32 hearing. The R.C.M. 405(k) supplemental matters package put the BOI's "no basis" finding directly in front of the Preliminary Hearing Officer. The defense argument was simple. Three Marine officers had already heard the alleged victim's story under oath and found there was not even a preponderance of evidence. The PHO got it. The PHO Report concluded that the BOI had already found "there was not even a preponderance of evidence to prove those allegations, which is a much lower standard than would be applicable at a court martial," and that the second Camp Lejeune incident "is rather minor in nature, and it would likely not have been pursued at a court martial if not for the existence of the first incident." We took that PHO record into negotiations. Tim Bilecki traveled to MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina for the Article 32 and the plea. The Convening Authority converted the case from general court martial to special court martial, military judge alone. Both Article 120 specifications were dismissed. The Article 92 sexual harassment specification was dismissed. The plea was guilty to a single Article 92 specification (unduly familiar relationship under Navy Regulations paragraph 1165) and a single Article 128 specification (assault consummated by a battery, touching without consent on the Camp Foster night). Sentence cap: 30 days confinement maximum, concurrent across the two guilty specifications. Bad conduct discharge. No forfeitures. No fines. Reduction to E-1 authorized. Both Article 120 specifications dismissed without prejudice. Article 92 unduly familiar relationship and Article 128 assault by battery are not SORNA qualifying offenses. No federal sex offender registration triggered. For a Marine Corporal at Camp Lejeune facing a referred general court martial on the same Article 120 allegation a Board of Inquiry had already found no basis on, with mandatory dishonorable discharge exposure on referral and lifetime federal sex offender registration on conviction, the Article 120 conviction track and SORNA registration were the actual exposure. Neither materialized.

Military law

Bilecki Avoids Article 120 Court Martial for Soldier; General Discharge, No SORNA

Oct 08, 2021

OUTCOME: No court martial. GOMOR filed. AdSep with General (Under Honorable Conditions), not OTH. No federal sex offender registration.

A junior enlisted Soldier in Korea was investigated for alleged sexual assault of another junior enlisted Soldier after a night of drinking in the Eighth Army area. The case could have gone to a genera ... l court martial. It did not. Bilecki Law Group was retained early, while the case was still in the pre-charging stage. We filed a Notice of Representation, got into the case before charges were preferred, and pushed the matter away from an Article 120 court martial track. The Commanding General did not refer the case to trial. The case stayed administrative. The facts were strange, messy, and very human. Our client and the complaining witness were both junior Soldiers. They had grown close during Basic Leadership Course in Korea. They had spent time together before the night in question, including lunches, golf, and other one-on-one time. This was not a stranger assault allegation. This was two Soldiers who knew each other, had been drinking together, and ended up back in the barracks. On the night in question, she wanted to go out and celebrate. They went to the Ville, had dinner, moved between bars, drank, and eventually ended up at the Osan Club. As the night went on, she became more affectionate with our client. She put her arms around him. She rested her head on his shoulder. That continued in the taxi ride back to the barracks. When they got back, she told him she was coming back to his room. He went to his room, changed, and got ready for bed. A few minutes later, she showed up at his door wearing shorts and a long sleeve shirt, carrying two bags of popcorn. She asked him to make the popcorn. That is where the case got ridiculous, but also important. He put the first bag in the microwave. While it was popping, they started kissing and moved to his bed. Then the microwave beeped. He got up, changed out the first bag, put in the second bag, and came back. She was still in his bed. They resumed. They had sex. It was brief. He finished before the second bag of popcorn was done, got up, took the popcorn out of the microwave, handed her the bags, and told her he was going to bed. It was crude. It was awkward. It was not gentlemanly. It was also not a general court martial. After she left, she texted him: "why did you do that to me, I said no." He immediately called her to ask what she was talking about. She did not answer. That text became the heart of the allegation. The defense work focused on what the GOMOR packet did not show. The complaining witness was not participating in the investigation in any meaningful way. Her sworn statement and recorded interview were not included in the GOMOR packet. The packet relied heavily on what other Soldiers said she said, not on a live, testable accusation from her. We attacked that directly. We walked the chain through the full sequence. The prior relationship. The night out at the Ville and the Osan Club. The drinking. The affectionate conduct at the club and in the taxi. Her decision to return to his room after changing clothes. The two bags of popcorn. The microwave interruption. The sex. The abrupt ending. The immediate text afterward. The Army did not send the case to court martial. We pushed the same documentary record argument into the AdSep negotiation. If the Army's own non-referral decision had been the right call, an OTH on the same conduct was disproportionate. The Army approved a conditional waiver capped at General (Under Honorable Conditions). For an Army Specialist at Camp Humphreys with a referred Article 120 court martial track that carried mandatory dishonorable discharge exposure on conviction and lifetime Tier III federal sex offender registration, plus an OTH AdSep queued behind it, the court martial conviction track and SORNA registration were the actual exposure. Neither materialized. The OTH characterization the command had recommended did not survive the rebuttal either.

Military law

Bilecki Keeps Army 2LT GOMOR Local After Conflicting AR 15-6 Findings

Sep 24, 2021

OUTCOME: GOMOR filed locally only. No AMHRR filing. No Show Cause Board. No NJP. No court martial.

A new Field Artillery Platoon Leader at Camp Casey received a GOMOR signed by the Convening General in late August 2021. The GOMOR alleged fraternization with a junior NCO between fall 2020 and spring ... 2021, in violation of AR 600-20 paragraph 4-14b and Article 92, UCMJ. It also alleged an HPCON nightclub violation during USFK public health restrictions. The CG stated his intent to file the GOMOR permanently in the AMHRR. For a Second Lieutenant in his first command, AMHRR permanent filing on a fraternization GOMOR is a career-ending action before the first OER cycle. The complaint did not start with the Army. Our client had arrived at Camp Casey in fall 2020 and taken over a platoon. He met a Korean civilian off post and started dating her exclusively. He broke up with her a few months later. She was erratic and jealous, did not understand the constraints on a U.S. Army officer in Korea, and did not take the breakup well. After she learned he was seeing someone else, she sent him a fake STD allegation. He checked with his previous partner. There was no STD. He blocked her communications and figured that was the end of it. It was not. She emailed the Provost Marshal's Office with the same allegations she had been making to him in private. The Command Investigation Track did the rest. Two different AR 15-6 investigating officers worked the same evidence and came to opposite conclusions. The first IO found no evidence to support the fraternization allegation and no evidence to support the HPCON nightclub allegation. She recommended a Letter of Concern only, and only on the way our client had handled verbal counselings from a peer LT. The second IO took one additional witness interview, from an SGT who said he had seen our client in a Seoul bar one time over a three month window, and substantiated everything. Same evidence. Different IOs. Different answers. The DBIDS card data the prosecution leaned on did not prove the allegation either. Our client and the named NCO entered Camp Casey at approximately the same time on a handful of occasions over six months, late at night and early in the morning. The defense theory was straightforward. When the ex girlfriend and her friends called it a night, the Soldiers in their orbit went home too. That does not prove the LT and the NCO were at the bar together. It proves they were at the same place because the ex girlfriend and her friends were there. Our client retained Bilecki after the Division CG signed the GOMOR with intent to file permanently in the AMHRR. We filed Notice of Representation and a continuance request in early September 2021. We submitted the GOMOR Rebuttal Matters package mid September to the Convening General. The rebuttal walked the CG through the contradictory IO findings, the second IO's express decision not to reinterview the central NCO witness named in the GOMOR, and the credibility of the originating complaint. A jealous ex girlfriend who had cycled through fake STD allegations before going to the PMO. Character letters from senior NCOs and a peer LT went in. We requested an audience with the CG. The GOMOR was filed locally only. No AMHRR filing. No Show Cause Board. No court martial. No NJP. For a brand-new Field Artillery 2LT in his first command facing a Division CG GOMOR set for permanent AMHRR filing on a fraternization theory built on contradictory IO findings and a jealous ex girlfriend's PMO complaint, that was a different ending than the one the Government was driving toward.

Military law

Bilecki Secures Honorable Resignation for Army Captain Before Article 92 Charges

Jul 23, 2021

OUTCOME: HRC accepted the unqualified resignation. Honorable characterization. No UCMJ charges. No GOMOR.

A Medical Corps Captain at Fort Irwin had been trying to leave the Army for two years and could not get the Army to let him go. He had been selected for promotion to Major. He had a documented record o ... f mental and physical health issues that made him want a different career path. The Army's response was to keep saying no. The timeline tells the story. He filed an Unqualified Resignation in 2018, before his four-year obligation cleared. Rejected. He went AWOL for 24 hours in late 2019. He filed for medical retirement through a Medical Evaluation Board in 2020. The MEB came back in spring 2021 saying he was fit for duty. His command told him to resubmit a UQR. He did, in May 2021. The next month, the hospital commander told him the resignation was rejected for unknown reasons and that he was, as of that day, AWOL. Then a Promotion Review Board started moving against him. Then his command issued lawful orders to report. He missed two of them. Almost two weeks off the books. The next thing scheduled was an Article 92(2) counseling that put GOMOR, NJP, court-martial, and Chapter 4 elimination under AR 600-8-24 in writing as the consequences of further noncompliance. That is when our client retained Bilecki. Bilecki picked up the phone. We called the local command at Fort Irwin and the SJA office, put the medical chronology and the rejected-UQR sequence on the line, and negotiated the path back. Our client returned to Fort Irwin and ended the AWOL. From there we negotiated the exit. The local command stepped off the Article 92 / GOMOR / Chapter 4 track. The Promotion Review Board pathway was closed by a Declination of Promotion in Lieu of PRB filed under AR 600-8-29 paragraph 8-1b. The Unqualified Resignation under AR 600-8-24, Chapter 3, Section II went up to HRC on a documentary record that was no longer fighting itself. HRC accepted the resignation. The officer separated from active duty with an Honorable characterization. No UCMJ charges. No Article 15. No GOMOR. No PRB record on the OMPF. No Chapter 4 elimination action. For an Army Medical Corps Captain who walked into the firm's office with two years of rejected UQRs, an MEB-fit-for-duty finding, two missed lawful orders, almost two weeks AWOL, and a counseling memo putting court-martial and Chapter 4 elimination on the table, that was a different ending than the one the Army was driving toward.