Bilecki Challenges Conflicting Investigations; Camp Casey Lieutenant’s GOMOR Filed Locally

Bilecki Challenges Conflicting Investigations; Camp Casey Lieutenant’s GOMOR Filed Locally

September 2021

Camp Casey, Korea

Army Second Lieutenant – O-1

Allegations: UCMJ Article 92 Fraternization with a Junior NCO; UCMJ Article 92 Failure to Obey a Public Health Emergency Order

Facts

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 at the start of his career, a permanently filed fraternization reprimand could jeopardize future assignments, promotion and retention.

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 AR 15-6 investigating officers reviewed substantially overlapping evidence and reached 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. Much of the 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. The defense explained the timing through the group’s social plans and departures, rather than treating matching gate entries as proof of a prohibited relationship.

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.

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

---

FAQ

Q: Why did Bilecki focus on the two investigation reports?
The first investigating officer did not substantiate fraternization or the nightclub allegation. The second reached a different result after one additional witness interview, without reinterviewing the central NCO witness. Bilecki put those differences before the General rather than treating the second report as conclusive.

Q: What did local filing accomplish?
The General filed the reprimand locally instead of in the Army’s permanent personnel record. The Lieutenant still received a reprimand, but no AMHRR filing, show-cause board, NJP or court-martial followed in this case.