Bilecki Contests Bahrain Lieutenant’s Harassment Allegation; Permanent GOMOR, No Elimination

Bilecki Contests Bahrain Lieutenant’s Harassment Allegation; Permanent GOMOR, No Elimination

October 2022

Isa Air Base, Bahrain (Task Force Spartan)

Army First Lieutenant – O-2

Allegations: UCMJ Article 92 Failure to Obey a Lawful General Regulation; UCMJ Article 134 Sexual Harassment / Bullying of a Subordinate Officer

Facts

This was an Air Defense Artillery First Lieutenant deployed in Bahrain on his first command tour facing a Task Force Spartan CG GOMOR built on sexual harassment allegations the underlying record did not support. For an O-2 in his first command, permanent filing of a sexual-harassment GOMOR creates a serious threat to promotion and retention.

The GOMOR was harsh. Signed by the CG in late August 2022, it stated that "for months" our client had "consistently and repeatedly bullied and degraded a subordinate officer" and that the conduct was "motivated by their rejection of your advances." The CG framed the conduct as "sexual harassment and bullying ... in clear violation of AR 600-20 and Articles 92 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice." The CG's stated intent was permanent AMHRR filing.

The GOMOR arose out of a fraternization rumor and a subordinate officer who had been confronted about it.

Tim Bilecki entered the case in August 2022, before the GOMOR was signed. The defense rebuttal told the rest of the story. Our client had confronted the subordinate officer about a substantiated fraternization rumor. The subordinate had then gone to the Battery Commander with a vague threat to file an EO/SHARP complaint with the Battalion EO/SHARP Representative if our client reported her. The investigating officer's findings, the rebuttal argued, were not factually substantiated, not legally sound, and not complete. The defense challenged the completeness of the investigative record and supplied the subordinate officer’s own statement with the rebuttal.

The supporting documentary record cut against the GOMOR's "rejected advances" framing.

Three text message conversations between our client and the subordinate were attached, beginning in late October 2021, late November 2021, and April 2022. The October text record contained the subordinate officer's own line: "I'm not dating right now due to personal reasons" and "I'm have trouble letting people in, but maybe give it some time." We argued that those exchanges supplied relationship context missing from the reprimand. The messages needed to be considered with the timing of the fraternization dispute and the complaint. They did not automatically disprove harassment, but they gave us specific evidence with which to contest the reprimand’s account.

The twenty-one enclosures included the subordinate officer’s June 2022 sworn statement, a memorandum from a peer lieutenant, an annotated investigation report and character letters from warrant officers, NCOs and junior Soldiers, including the unit First Sergeant.

The closing paragraph framing was direct. The rebuttal asked the CG to recognize that "after months of being under investigation, [the LT] is now firmly aware that, had he been a little more personable, maybe none of this would have happened. In effect, he has been trained as such. We ask that you keep training him, keep counseling him, and yell at him if you have to, because this is an individual you want in your Officer Corps and someone the U.S. Army arguably cannot afford to lose."

In late October 2022, the CG signed the Filing Determination. The GOMOR was filed permanently in the AMHRR performance folder.

No NJP. No court martial. No administrative separation. No demotion. No officer elimination action under AR 600-8-24.

Result: GOMOR filed permanently in AMHRR performance folder. No NJP. No court martial. No AdSep. No officer elimination.

---

FAQ

Q: What did Bilecki put before the commanding general?
We submitted the subordinate officer’s statement, three message conversations, an annotated investigation report, a peer lieutenant’s memorandum and character letters. The rebuttal challenged both the allegation’s factual support and the account of why the complaint arose. It also asked the general to consider the lieutenant’s service and capacity to continue as an officer.

Q: Did the rebuttal result in local filing?
No. The general directed permanent filing in the AMHRR performance folder. The case nevertheless ended without NJP, court-martial or officer elimination. Permanent filing was an adverse result and remains part of the account.