CASE 2026-08 | OKINAWA, JAPAN | MARINE CORPS E-7
Bilecki Defeats Article 107 Allegation at Okinawa NJP; Restriction Only and No Administrative Separation
August 2026
Okinawa, Japan
Marine Gunnery Sergeant – E-7
Allegations: UCMJ Article 107 False Official Statement; UCMJ Article 134 Patronizing Prostitution
Facts
The Marine Corps accused a Gunnery Sergeant in Okinawa of paying for a sexual act and then lying to an investigator. The command was considering nonjudicial punishment, with restriction, extra duties, and loss of pay among the possible consequences. For a senior Marine with years invested in his career, the larger question was whether the command would also move to separate him from the service.
Our client retained Bilecki Law Group while the allegations were still being addressed. The Government’s file included messages, screenshots, and an investigator’s account of the client’s interview. There was evidence the command would take seriously. Tim Bilecki and Ben Gold reviewed the case with the client, evaluated the available forum, and communicated with the command about resolving the matter through NJP. The client ultimately elected to accept NJP. That election still left us room to contest what the command could actually prove.
The false official statement allegation deserved its own fight. The notification accused our client of denying that he knew of a particular woman during an interview in November 2025. CID’s own report placed the interview in January 2026. The November date was when the matter had been referred to CID. More significant, the report described a denial of financial transactions and text messages, while the notification alleged a denial of awareness of the woman. Those were different statements.
Bilecki went back to the source. The investigator’s report expressly described itself as a summary that was neither verbatim nor chronological. The interview had been recorded, but the recording had not been provided to Bilecki. We argued that the actual question, answer, sequence, and context mattered. The commander had to assess the statement charged in the notification and whether it was knowingly false and made with an intent to deceive. A summary using different words could not simply stand in for that analysis.
We made that argument in a written rebuttal submitted before the NJP. Bilecki asked the commander to find the Article 107 allegation unproven. The submission also identified the incorrect date used for the separate patronizing allegation and challenged efforts to turn later communications into proof of additional misconduct. The command needed to decide the alleged incident before it on the evidence actually available.
The mitigation was equally specific. We argued that even if the commander found the patronizing allegation established, the record did not justify treating it as a pattern or as conduct involving force, injury, a subordinate, or misuse of rank. The command had continued to entrust our client with leadership duties while the investigation was pending. We put that fact in front of the commander because it said something practical about his continued value to the Marine Corps.
Bilecki asked for a written reprimand if punishment was imposed and, alternatively, for forfeitures, restriction, or extra duties to be suspended. The purpose was to give the commander a concrete basis for a limited response while preserving the separate challenge to Article 107. The written presentation carried that work into the NJP without conceding the disputed false statement allegation.
The commander rejected Article 107. The punishment was restriction only. No forfeitures. No extra duties. The command did not pursue administrative separation. Our client still received punishment, but the allegation that he had lied to an investigator was rejected, his pay was not taken, and the matter ended without a separation action. For this Marine, that was a substantial result.
Result: Article 107 rejected. Restriction only, with no forfeitures or extra duties and no administrative separation.
FAQ
Q: Can a Marine accept NJP and still contest an Article 107 allegation?
Yes. Accepting NJP allows the commander to decide the allegations in that forum; it does not require the Marine to agree that every allegation is true. The Marine may present evidence and arguments in defense. Here, the written rebuttal compared the false statement alleged in the notification with the different language in the investigator’s summary, identified the incorrect interview date, and explained why the missing recording mattered. The commander rejected Article 107 even though the case proceeded through NJP and resulted in restriction on the remaining matter.
Q: Does an NJP result resolve whether a Marine will face administrative separation?
The punishment decision and the separation decision are distinct. Accepting NJP does not itself protect a Marine from a later separation action, and limited punishment does not establish that the command has decided to retain the Marine. Both outcomes must be checked. In this case, the command imposed restriction without forfeitures or extra duties and also decided not to pursue administrative separation. That separate decision mattered to a senior Marine seeking to continue his service. Describing only the restriction would leave out a substantial part of the result.
Prior results do not predict future outcomes.