Bilecki Wins Rescission of GOMOR for Special Forces Officer Who Helped Soldier Through Divorce

Bilecki Wins Rescission of GOMOR for Special Forces Officer Who Helped Soldier Through Divorce

April 2022

Fort Campbell, Kentucky / Fort Bragg, North Carolina

Army First Lieutenant | O-2

Allegations: UCMJ Article 134 Fraternization; AR 600-20 Prohibited Relationship with Enlisted Soldier; UCMJ Article 112a Wrongful Use of Cocaine; UCMJ Article 134 Solicitation of Prostitution; AR 600-37 General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand

Facts

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 apartment issue was also more limited than the GOMOR made it sound. The First Lieutenant did not move in with the senior NCO. He allowed the senior NCO to stay at his apartment for a short period while the First Lieutenant stayed elsewhere. It was temporary shelter for a Soldier who had nowhere stable to go.

The custody memorandum was based on what the First Lieutenant personally observed while supervising visits with the senior NCO's children. The memorandum should have been handled through command channels. But the substance was not invented. It came from his own direct observations during supervised visitation.

The rebuttal also put the original Investigating Officer's recommendation back in front of the Commanding General. The officer who investigated the facts had recommended no punitive or adverse administrative action. The Group Commander overrode that recommendation. The GOMOR rebuttal forced the final decision maker to see both.

Then the rebuttal showed who the First Lieutenant was.

He had served in 5th Special Forces Group, deployed in support of Operation Inherent Resolve, worked in complex logistics and support roles, and built a reputation as a hard working, multilingual, highly educated officer with Special Operations ambitions. His background included Georgetown, Russian studies, Farsi, Dari, Russian, Swahili, and work tied to complex regional security issues.

His character package was not generic. Officers, senior NCOs, Special Forces leaders, logistics leaders, deployed teammates, and Soldiers who worked with him described a young officer who cared deeply about Soldiers, worked hard, took hard missions seriously, and had unusual potential. One character statement described him during a rocket attack overseas, running toward casualties, giving aid, helping move the injured, and assisting with treatment. The statement said his actions helped save lives.

That fact mattered because it showed the same instinct that created the GOMOR problem. When he saw someone in trouble, he moved. Overseas, that instinct saved people. At Fort Campbell, without proper boundaries and command involvement, the same instinct got him investigated.

The Commanding General rescinded the GOMOR in full.

No AMHRR filing. No local filing. No adverse administrative action.

Result: GOMOR rescinded in full.

---

FAQ

Q: How does a GOMOR get rescinded after it has already been issued?
A GOMOR can be rescinded before the filing decision if the rebuttal changes the General Officer's view of the facts, context, or appropriate disposition. The rebuttal must do more than argue that the client is a good person. It has to confront the allegation, correct the factual record, explain what the investigation missed, and give the General Officer a lawful basis to rescind, locally file, or decline permanent filing. In this case, the rebuttal showed that the drug and prostitution allegations were unsupported, the financial help was not given for personal gain, the original Investigating Officer recommended no adverse action, and the officer had already been counseled and corrected.

Q: Can an officer give money to an enlisted Soldier in crisis?
AR 600-20 restricts relationships between officers and enlisted Soldiers, including financial relationships that can create actual or perceived partiality, misuse of rank, exploitation, or a compromise of supervisory authority. Helping a Soldier in crisis may be morally understandable, but an officer still has to use the chain of command and Army support systems. In this case, the defense argued that the money was a gift, not a loan or business relationship, and that there was no interest, repayment demand, personal gain, or preferential treatment. The better process would have been command involvement, AER, housing support, family support channels, and documented assistance through proper systems.

Q: Why did the Investigating Officer's recommendation matter?
Because the Investigating Officer heard the evidence and recommended no punitive or adverse administrative action. The Group Commander later modified the findings and forwarded the matter for adverse action. The GOMOR rebuttal put the original recommendation back in front of the Commanding General and showed that the case had already been investigated, narrowed, counseled, and corrected. That helped support full rescission.