Bilecki Wins Retention at Reserve Sergeant’s Board; Permanently Filed GOMOR Later Removed

Bilecki Wins Retention at Reserve Sergeant’s Board; Permanently Filed GOMOR Later Removed

October 2023

Fort Meade, Maryland

Army Reserve Sergeant – E-5

Allegations: UCMJ Article 128 Assault; UCMJ Article 127 Extortion

Facts

This was an Army Reserve Sergeant facing an administrative separation board on two allegations from a 2019 incident in Korea. The Government's recommended characterization was Other Than Honorable. A separation with that characterization would have ended her Reserve career.

The Government alleged that in summer 2019 in Korea, our client had drawn an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel to a residence where her then-boyfriend, an Army Captain, recorded a video of him assaulting the LTC. The Government further alleged that, two weeks later, our client had attempted to extort $35,000 from the LTC via a donor solicitation letter from a non-profit she had founded. The letter requested a $35,000 contribution in $5,000 installments and included a screenshot of the slap video and a Facebook image of the LTC's family. The Captain had taped the envelope to the LTC's apartment door at her direction.

Her Reserve Command had issued a GOMOR on these facts in late 2021 and filed it permanently in the AMHRR. An AGR active duty opportunity she had been selected for was rescinded as a result. The AdSep Board referral followed in late 2022 with the OTH recommendation.

Our client retained Tim Bilecki to represent her at the Board.

The CID investigation had found no fingerprints from our client or the Captain on the donor letter or the envelope. The only prints recovered were the LTC's. CID had been denied magistrate authorization to seize our client's personal laptop. The Captain had been tried separately at general court martial for conspiracy and attempted extortion arising from the same alleged scheme; a panel of senior officers had acquitted him on both, convicting only of the slap itself. The 2d Infantry Division Commanding General had granted our client testimonial immunity under R.C.M. 704 to testify in the Captain's general court martial, and our client had testified. The LTC himself had been investigated by AFOSI for abusive sexual contact arising from the underlying bar incident and received a Letter of Reprimand; in his rebuttal to that LOR, he had denied any sexual interest in our client, contradicting his own CID interview admission that he had intended to have sex with her. The CID Special Agent who ran the file would tell the Board on cross examination that she did not trust the LTC's interview statement.

Tim Bilecki traveled to Fort Meade, Maryland for the two-day Administrative Separation Board. The Board convened in October 2023. The defense objected to the Government's CID Investigation exhibit on hearsay grounds, and the Recorder withdrew Bates 39–64 from the exhibit. Defense cross of the CID Special Agent put the forensic gap and the LTC's credibility issues in front of the Board. Defense character witnesses across our client's career put her record in front of the Board. Our client gave an unsworn statement.

The Board found Allegation 1 not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board found Allegation 2 not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board recommended retention.

Defense work continued on the GOMOR after the Board. The Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board removed the GOMOR from the AMHRR.

Result: Both allegations not supported at AdSep Board. Full retention. GOMOR later removed by DASEB. No separation. The previously filed GOMOR was removed from the AMHRR.

---

FAQ

Q: What did Bilecki establish through the CID agent?
The defense challenged the physical link between our client and the solicitation letter, including the absence of her fingerprints, and confronted the agent with problems in the Lieutenant Colonel’s statements. The missing fingerprints did not prove she had never handled the documents. They were one part of the larger proof problem Tim presented to the board.

Q: Did the Captain’s separate acquittals decide this board?
No. The Captain’s court-martial and this Sergeant’s separation board decided different respondents’ responsibility under different standards. The defense used the related record as context, then contested both allegations against our client. The board found neither supported by a preponderance of the evidence and recommended retention.

Q: What happened to the existing GOMOR?
The defense continued pursuing relief after the board. DASEB later removed the reprimand from the AMHRR. That was a separate result from retention; the favorable board findings did not automatically erase the GOMOR.