Bilecki Separates Officer’s Conduct from Broader Workplace Allegations; GOMOR Filed Locally

Bilecki Separates Officer’s Conduct from Broader Workplace Allegations; GOMOR Filed Locally

December 2021

MacDill Air Force Base, Florida

Army Lieutenant Colonel | O-5

Allegations: DoDI 1020.03 Harassment Prevention and Response in the Armed Forces; Toxic or Hostile Workplace Environment; AR 600-37 General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand

Facts

The GOMOR was issued. The fight was where it would be filed.

An Army Lieutenant Colonel serving in the USCENTCOM J-2 at MacDill Air Force Base was pulled into an AR 15-6 workplace investigation involving the culture inside the J-2 section. The investigation was larger than him. It involved the section, the Colonel above him, and allegations that the workplace had become toxic or hostile.

The Investigating Officer interviewed nineteen personnel and reviewed twenty-five witness statements from a prior commander's inquiry. The toxic or hostile workplace allegation was founded. The unlawful gender discrimination allegation was unfounded.

For the Lieutenant Colonel, the harassment finding came down to two comments involving a subordinate field grade officer. One was a promotion and salute joke that he believed was ordinary Army humor. The other was a blunt comment after repeated problems with a PowerPoint product. He said words to the effect of asking whether she wanted him to "kick your ass." He later explained that the comment came from frustration, not intent to threaten or harass, and that he immediately tried to explain that was not what he meant.

The Investigating Officer recommended a General Officer Memorandum of Record and Consideration of Others training.

The Army Element Commander issued a full GOMOR.

A permanent filing in the Army Military Human Resource Record would have been devastating. For a field grade officer, a permanently filed GOMOR can threaten promotion and retention and become part of a later decision about the officer’s future. This Lieutenant Colonel had served for 23 years. He had combat deployments, a clean disciplinary record, and a career that could have ended with one filing decision.

Bilecki was retained during the AR 15-6 phase, before the GOMOR filing decision. The defense first attacked the investigation record.

The AR 15-6 response did not pretend the comments were perfect. The Lieutenant Colonel accepted that the second comment should have been handled better. But the defense put the comments back into the actual workplace sequence. The subordinate field grade officer had documented performance and communication issues. She missed key products. She struggled with the battle rhythm for the branch's intelligence work. She had been reminded about mandatory physical training. She signed the initial counseling. She received midpoint counseling on the same work product issues later used to frame the conflict.

The defense also showed what the complaining officer's account did not show: the Lieutenant Colonel had tried to coach her, tried to build rapport, offered professional development opportunities, and adjusted his approach after being told to soften his leadership style.

The witness package was critical. Bilecki submitted sworn statements from officers, civilians, contractors, and senior enlisted personnel who had worked with the Lieutenant Colonel. They described him as blunt, high expectation, operationally focused, and effective. They did not describe him as a toxic leader. Several said they would work for him again.

The defense also separated him from the broader section leadership problem. The AR 15-6 was about the J-2 workplace environment. The section chief above him had his own issues in the investigation. The Lieutenant Colonel served under that section chief, but the witness statements and documentary record showed that his leadership was different. He was demanding. He was direct. He pushed the mission. But the people who worked with him described an open door leader who listened, solved problems, and held the team to mission standards.

After the GOMOR was issued, Bilecki submitted the GOMOR rebuttal to the Army Element Commander. The rebuttal asked for rescission or, at minimum, local filing.

The GOMOR rebuttal carried forward the AR 15-6 response, the witness package, the performance context, and the separation from the section chief. It also put the full 23 year Army record in front of the decision maker: enlistment in 1998, rise to Lieutenant Colonel, multiple combat deployments, no prior adverse action, no prior similar complaint, and a character package that included senior leaders, field grade officers, and a senior NCO.

The Army Element Commander locally filed the GOMOR for 18 months.

The reprimand did not enter the AMHRR. No Special Selection Review Board was triggered. The 23 year career was preserved.

Result: GOMOR locally filed for 18 months. No AMHRR filing. No SSRB. 23 year career preserved.

---

FAQ

Q: What is the difference between a locally filed GOMOR and an AMHRR filed GOMOR?
A locally filed GOMOR stays in the local unit file for a limited period, usually not more than 18 months, or until reassignment to another general court martial jurisdiction, whichever occurs first. An AMHRR filed GOMOR goes into the Army Military Human Resource Record and follows the officer into promotion, retention, school, command, and elimination decisions. In this case, local filing kept the reprimand out of the AMHRR.

Q: How does a DoDI 1020.03 harassment finding become a GOMOR?
DoDI 1020.03 is a Department of Defense harassment prevention and response policy. An AR 15-6 investigation can find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that an officer violated that policy. A General Officer can then use that finding as the basis for an administrative reprimand under AR 600-37. The GOMOR is administrative, but the filing decision can decide the officer's career.

Q: How does the defense separate a subordinate field grade officer from a broader toxic workplace investigation?
The defense has to break the case down by actual conduct. A workplace investigation may describe a bad section climate, but the filing authority still has to decide what the individual officer did. Here, the defense separated the Lieutenant Colonel from the broader section chief issues, submitted sworn statements from people who worked with him directly, put the complaining officer's performance and counseling history in context, and showed that the gender discrimination allegation was unfounded.