Bilecki Challenges Battalion Commander’s Property-Loss Assessment; Liability Reduced and Command Retained

Bilecki Challenges Battalion Commander’s Property-Loss Assessment; Liability Reduced and Command Retained

July 2022

Fort Gordon, Georgia (FLIPL convening at Fort Bragg, North Carolina)

Army Lieutenant Colonel – O-5

Allegations: Imputed Property Loss of Approximately $190,000 Against Outgoing Battalion Commander

Facts

This was a sitting Battalion Commander of a newly activated cyber unit at Fort Gordon staring down a roughly $190,000 FLIPL on a property loss that had happened after the inactivation of his prior command, with the loss window running on the receiving end of the property transfer, not on his.

The FLIPL was a regulatory mismatch with the actual facts.

Our client's prior command, an Expeditionary Signal Battalion at Fort Bragg, had received its inactivation order in fall 2020 as the first piece of a phased operation that would stand up his new cyber battalion at Fort Gordon. Through fall 2020 and spring 2021, the prior battalion had maintained its Immediate Response Force commitment and had prioritized real world missions over its inactivation timeline. FORSCOM and XVIII Airborne Corps had themselves accepted that posture. The battalion inactivated on schedule. The property transferred to a Corps Signal Brigade and a follow on Task Force.

The actual loss of accountability window ran from fall 2021 through winter 2022. That window started after the prior battalion had inactivated. We argued that the receiving entity was responsible during that period, relying on the transfer records and the receiving hand-receipt holder’s duties under AR 710-2.

That is not where the FLIPL Investigating Officer pointed.

The IO pointed at our client. The findings memorandum recommended financial liability for one month's base pay, framed as "command decision to disregard a FORSCOM and XVIII Airborne Corps inactivation order." The IO also recommended liability against a senior Colonel, two Lieutenants, an SGT, a CW2, and a civilian. The Liability Notification advised AR 735-5 paragraph 13-42 rights and gave a seven day rebuttal window. The Approving Authority was the Deputy Commanding General, XVIII Airborne Corps.

For a sitting Battalion Commander, the allegation that he had disregarded an inactivation order put more than pay at stake. The defense also had to protect his command and answer the criticism of his leadership.

Our client retained Bilecki after the IO findings memorandum hit, with the seven day rebuttal window already running.

The defense FLIPL Response went in July 2022 with fifteen enclosures.

The rebuttal challenged the FLIPL under AR 735-5 for failure to establish proximate cause. It walked the Approving Authority through AR 710-2 Table 2-2 and the receiving entity's 30 day signing obligation on the Primary Hand Receipt Holder. It put the operational record in front of the Approving Authority on what the prior battalion had actually been doing through the relevant period: SITREPs, OPORDs, and contemporaneous emails from a Captain, a Lieutenant, a Master Sergeant, and a Sergeant Major running the IRF commitment and the inactivation. The Sergeant Major's own Q&A response to the IO read directly: "I do not believe the order was disregarded."

We put the FORSCOM and XVIII Airborne Corps acceptance of the operational posture in the same package. The narrative the IO had built, that our client had unilaterally disregarded the FORSCOM and Corps inactivation order, did not survive contact with FORSCOM and Corps's own contemporaneous email record.

The final decision reduced the financial assessment.

The final action imposed partial liability below the investigating officer’s recommendation of one month’s basic pay. The roughly $190,000 figure was the total property loss under investigation, not the amount assessed against our client. No GOMOR. No additional adverse action. No relief for cause. No UCMJ charges. The LTC was retained in command at Fort Gordon.

Result: FLIPL liability significantly reduced. No GOMOR, no relief for cause, and no additional adverse action. Battalion command preserved.

---

FAQ

Q: What did Bilecki challenge in the property-loss investigation?
The accusation tied the loss to a supposed decision to disregard an inactivation order. We answered it with the operational orders, situation reports and emails showing that the higher headquarters had accepted the battalion’s mission commitments. We also traced the property transfer and the later period when accountability was lost. That evidence supported the argument that the investigation had not properly connected this commander’s conduct to the loss.

Q: Was the Lieutenant Colonel assessed the entire $190,000?
No. That figure described the property loss under investigation. The investigating officer recommended one month’s basic pay against our client, and the final assessment was below that recommendation. He remained in battalion command, without a GOMOR or relief for cause.