Bilecki Secures Withdrawal of Child-Abuse Charges; Contests Later Permanent GOMOR

Bilecki Secures Withdrawal of Child-Abuse Charges; Contests Later Permanent GOMOR

August 2023

MacDill Air Force Base, Florida / Fort Knox, Kentucky

Army Staff Sergeant | E-6

Allegations: UCMJ Article 120b Sexual Abuse of a Child; UCMJ Article 134 Sexual Misconduct; AR 600-37 General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand; Withdrawal From Signed Pretrial Agreement

Facts

An Army Staff Sergeant stationed in the Tampa area was accused of sexually abusing his minor stepdaughter during a divorce and custody fight. Florida law enforcement investigated first. The Florida State Attorney declined prosecution because the evidence did not establish probable cause. A Florida child forensic interviewer also found no indicators of child abuse or maltreatment and concluded that the allegation of sexual abuse and child exploitation was not substantiated.

The allegation still moved into the military system. Charges were preferred, and the case went to an Article 32 preliminary hearing. At that hearing, Trial Counsel opened by saying, "reasonable minds may differ." The allegation was serious, but the proof had problems. Florida had already declined prosecution. The child forensic interview did not substantiate the allegation. The allegation came out of a family breakdown, with divorce, custody, and motive issues sitting in the middle of the case.

The Army referred the case to a General Court-Martial.

Bilecki was retained during the Article 32 phase. The defense went at the allegation through the materials Florida had already reviewed, the child forensic interview, the divorce and custody timeline, and the gaps in the Army investigation. Army CID relied heavily on statements, but the investigation did not do the corroboration work the facts required. There was no useful home layout, no meaningful crime-scene documentation, missed witness development, and interview work that left major questions unanswered.

After months of litigation, Bilecki negotiated a signed pretrial agreement that changed the entire posture of the case. This was not a guilty plea. The agreement withdrew and dismissed the General Court-Martial charges and moved the case to a General Officer Article 15, where the Staff Sergeant could contest the allegations and present his defense. The agreement also barred disposition by GOMOR while the case proceeded under the agreed General Officer Article 15 process.

The command then started down that agreed path. The Staff Sergeant received the Article 15 first reading. He signed his elections. The defense submitted Article 15 rebuttal matters. The second reading was scheduled.

Before the second reading occurred, the Commanding General changed.

The second reading was postponed. Defense counsel tried to get the proceeding rescheduled and tried to get answers from the command. For nearly two months, the Staff Sergeant remained flagged, past his ETS, still in the Tampa area, and waiting to learn whether the Army would honor the agreement it had signed.

The new Commanding General purported to withdraw from the signed agreement, took the position that substantial performance had not occurred, and then issued a GOMOR. Bilecki submitted the GOMOR rebuttal in August 2023. The rebuttal challenged both parts of the case: the allegation and the process. On the facts, Florida had declined prosecution, the child forensic interview did not substantiate sexual abuse, the allegation arose in the middle of divorce and custody litigation, and the defense used trial counsel’s “reasonable minds may differ” statement to reinforce its challenge to the strength of the case. On the process, the command had already accepted the agreement Bilecki negotiated, issued the Article 15 first reading, received the signed elections, received the defense Article 15 matters, and then changed course after the Commanding General changed.

The Staff Sergeant was an intelligence analyst with a strong record. He had briefed senior leaders, earned early promotions, graduated near the top of his leadership courses, completed a master's degree, started doctoral coursework, and had already been selected for Warrant Officer. The pending case had left him flagged and past ETS. The GOMOR threatened the career he had built and the Warrant Officer path he had already earned.

The GOMOR was permanently filed.

The case began as a referred General Court-Martial for child sexual abuse allegations. It ended as an administrative reprimand. No court-martial conviction. No guilty plea. No Article 120b conviction. No sex-offense conviction.

Result: Charges withdrawn and dismissed per the pretrial agreement. GOMOR permanently filed. No court-martial conviction.

---

FAQ

Q: Why did the Florida declination and child forensic interview matter?
Because Florida reviewed the allegation before the Army pushed the case forward. The Florida State Attorney declined prosecution because the evidence did not establish probable cause. The child forensic interview found no indicators of child abuse or maltreatment and concluded the sexual abuse and child exploitation allegation was not substantiated. Those facts did not bind the Army, but they were central to the defense position that the allegation should not have supported a General Court-Martial or a permanent GOMOR.

Q: Why did the signed pretrial agreement matter?
Because Bilecki negotiated an agreement that withdrew and dismissed the General Court-Martial charges and moved the case to a General Officer Article 15, where the Staff Sergeant could contest the allegations and present his defense. The agreement barred disposition by GOMOR while the case proceeded under that agreed Article 15 process. After the first reading, signed elections, and submitted Article 15 matters, the new Commanding General purported to withdraw from the agreement, claimed substantial performance had not occurred, and issued a GOMOR. The rebuttal challenged that sequence directly.

Q: Why was a permanent GOMOR still a meaningful result compared to the original court-martial exposure?
A permanently filed GOMOR is serious. It can damage promotion, retention, reenlistment, and future service. But this case began as a referred General Court-Martial involving Article 120b child sexual abuse allegations. A conviction would have carried life-changing consequences. The final action was an administrative reprimand, not a court-martial conviction, not a guilty plea, and not a sex-offense conviction.