CASE 2026-09 | GOODFELLOW AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS | MARINE CORPS E-5
Bilecki Presents Snapchat Age Messages to OSTC; Marine Returns to Schoolhouse With No Adverse Action
September 2026
Goodfellow Air Force Base, Texas
Marine Sergeant – E-5
Allegations: Investigation of Alleged Sexual Communications With a Minor; UCMJ Article 120b
Facts
A Marine Sergeant at Goodfellow Air Force Base was trying to move forward with his military training when an NCIS investigation put his career in jeopardy. The Government alleged sexual communications with a minor. Agents had seized his phone, and he was facing the prospect of criminal charges and a separate command decision about his future in the Marine Corps.
Bilecki Law Group was working on the case by July 2025. The immediate problem was access to the communications themselves. With the phone in Government custody, recovering account data became more difficult. Digital forensics specialist Patrick Eller provided guidance on retrieving Snapchat data, including how to address account access problems tied to the seized phone. We worked with the available client materials and examined the search authorization to understand what NCIS was investigating and what information the command had authorized agents to search for.
The available Snapchat messages contained something the charging decision needed to account for. In an earlier exchange, our client directly asked whether the other participant was actually 18. She answered that she was. That exchange gave us evidence of what he had been told about her age, in the conversation itself, before the investigation began.
The surrounding messages required careful review. The Government alleged sexual communications, and references to school in the available messages could be used to challenge the reasonableness of his belief about age. We assessed the age representation in that context. The defense argument was that the other participant’s express representation of adulthood mattered when evaluating our client’s understanding and whether this case should be prosecuted. The Government’s allegation of her actual age did not make those messages disappear.
Tim Bilecki presented the Snapchat age messages and the defense arguments to the Office of Special Trial Counsel. That presentation put the actual exchange before the prosecutors while they were deciding what to do with the case. It was integral to OSTC’s decision to defer the matter to the command.
The command then had its own decision to make. It chose to take no adverse action. Our client was placed back in the schoolhouse and continued his Marine Corps career without adverse administrative action. The result was concrete: the case ended at the investigative stage, and he returned to the training the investigation had interrupted.
Result: OSTC deferred the matter to the command. The command took no adverse action, and the Marine returned to the schoolhouse to continue his career.
FAQ
Q: Can Snapchat messages about age matter in an Article 120b investigation?
Yes, but an age claim must be assessed with the full conversation and the applicable offense. For certain Article 120b offenses, a reasonable belief that the other person had reached 16 can be a defense if that person was actually at least 12. Different rules apply below that age. An isolated statement that someone is 18 does not automatically resolve reasonableness. Here, the earlier messages showed a direct question about age and an affirmative answer. Bilecki presented that evidence to OSTC as part of the defense position before the prosecution decision was made.
Q: Does OSTC deferral mean the command must take no action?
No. Deferral returns the matter for a command disposition, which can still include nonjudicial punishment or administrative action when authorized. The prosecutor’s decision and the command’s decision therefore need to be understood separately. In this case, Bilecki’s presentation of the Snapchat evidence was integral to OSTC’s deferral, and the command then chose to take no adverse action. That second decision allowed the Marine to return to the schoolhouse and continue his career. The result was a deferral followed by no command action, rather than a verdict at trial.
Prior results do not predict future outcomes.