CASE 2026-06 | CAMP HENRY, REPUBLIC OF KOREA | ARMY E-7
Bilecki Cuts $76,000 BAH Fraud Case from Five Specifications to One Plea and Secures Army Retirement at Camp Henry
June 2026
Camp Henry, Republic of Korea
Army Sergeant First Class – E-7
Allegations: UCMJ Article 121 Larceny of BAH; UCMJ Article 107 False Official Statements; Solicitation to Obstruct Justice
Facts
By the time the Army preferred charges, the Sergeant First Class had more than 19 years of active service and was approaching retirement. The allegations arose from an unaccompanied Korea assignment that began in May 2023. His wife had lived in Minnesota for years. The Army accused him of creating a California lease, listing a San Diego address for her, and using the much higher San Diego BAH rate to collect approximately $76,000. The Army did not treat this as a pay error. It alleged a deliberate scheme involving tens of thousands of dollars through five criminal specifications that exposed him to extended confinement, a punitive discharge, and the loss of the retirement he had spent almost two decades earning.
The Government had evidence that was going to be difficult to explain away. The lease used typed signatures and described the property as a two-bedroom condominium even though it was a five-bedroom house. The Government also had a false DA Form 5960, other official forms it claimed contained false information, an altered divorce decree, and a recording in which he allegedly asked his wife to sign a false statement about living in California. The Army charged larceny, three false official statements, and solicitation to obstruct justice.
When our client retained Bilecki in February 2026, the CID file included Army pay calculations dating to 2008 that combined housing, family separation, and moving payments into a gross total approaching $450,000. Those numbers made the case look enormous. They also mixed nearly two decades of benefits with the much shorter period on the charge sheet.
Tim Bilecki did not sell him a fantasy about the evidence. The only responsible defense was to make the Army prove every charge and every dollar, then negotiate an agreement that protected the retirement.
Before the final agreement, the case still exposed him to confinement and financial punishment on all five specifications. Bilecki would not accept a deal that left the retirement exposed.
We started with the money because the Government's own numbers did not line up. The specification ran from July 2023 through the payment made around the beginning of January 2025 for December 2024. That meant six monthly payments of $3,945 in 2023 and twelve monthly payments of $4,344 in 2024. The total was $75,798. Earlier calculations pulled in retroactive money from before the charged period or used broad historical totals that were not the charged loss.
We made the stipulation match the actual pay records. It excluded the retroactive May and June 2023 amount, included the final December 2024 installment paid around the beginning of January 2025, and fixed the charged total at $75,798. Every admission had to trace back to a document or recording in the CID file. The Army could no longer move between different dates and different loss figures depending on which number looked worse.
Then Bilecki changed the case. Our client pleaded guilty only to the Article 121 larceny specification and not guilty to the other four specifications. The agreement required the Government to move before findings to dismiss those four without prejudice, with the dismissals to become with prejudice after final judgment if the guilty finding survived. The agreement capped confinement at 45 days and prohibited a punitive discharge, fine, forfeitures, and every other punishment except reduction to E-6. It required the Convening Authority to withhold the charged misconduct from subordinate commanders, not initiate separation, and not oppose the retirement request. If a higher Army authority initiated separation, the Convening Authority agreed to recommend that he be allowed to retire.
The charge sheet reduced almost two decades of Army service to five accusations and a dollar figure. We put the rest of the man back into the case. He was a combat aviation veteran who later led Soldiers in recruiting and culinary assignments, earned two college degrees on active duty, mentored younger Soldiers, and received multiple Air Medals.
We also made the cost of reduction real. The stipulation calculated the difference between retirement as an E-6 and retirement as an E-7 at approximately $318 per month. That was about $153,000 over 40 years at current rates and more than $230,000 in nominal dollars if the assumed annual cost of living increases occurred. DFAS could still recoup the housing debt. The military judge therefore was not deciding whether he would be punished. The reduction and retirement consequences guaranteed that.
Tim Bilecki personally appeared at Camp Henry for sentencing. The military judge imposed the maximum confinement allowed by the agreement: 45 days. The military judge's authority was limited to reduction to E-6 and no more than 45 days. The Convening Authority's separate commitments protected the retirement process, and the Army approved his retirement.
Result: Five specifications reduced to one plea. Forty-five days, no punitive discharge, and an approved Army retirement.
FAQ
Q: Why does a month by month audit matter in a military BAH fraud case?
The Government cannot replace the charged loss with every housing payment it finds in a service member's career. The start date, end date, monthly rate, retroactive payments, and actual disbursement dates all matter. In this case, the CID file included Army pay calculations dating to 2008 that combined housing, family separation, and moving payments into a gross total approaching $450,000. The specification ran from July 2023 through the payment made around the beginning of January 2025 for December 2024. Bilecki used the Leave and Earnings Statements to count six monthly payments at the 2023 rate and twelve at the 2024 rate. That produced $75,798. The final stipulation excluded money paid for periods outside the charge and stopped the Government from using whichever larger number happened to help at the moment.
Q: Why did 45 days amount to a major defense victory in this BAH case?
Confinement was only one part of the risk. A punitive discharge or separation would have cost a Sergeant First Class almost two decades of service and the retirement that came with it. Bilecki negotiated one guilty specification, a maximum of 45 days, no punitive discharge, no fine, and no forfeitures. The agreement also required the Convening Authority not to initiate separation or oppose retirement and to recommend retirement if a higher authority initiated separation. The judge imposed all 45 days, but could not impose a punitive discharge or any other punishment beyond reduction to E-6. The Convening Authority's separate commitments protected the retirement process, and the Army approved his retirement.
Q: What did the agreement require for the four specifications outside the plea?
Our client pleaded not guilty to the three false official statement specifications and the solicitation specification. The agreement required the Government to move before findings to dismiss those four without prejudice. Those dismissals would become with prejudice after final judgment if the guilty finding survived. The timing matters, so it would be inaccurate to say they were already dismissed with prejudice on sentencing day. The immediate result still mattered: the conviction and sentence rested on one offense, not five.
Prior results do not predict future outcomes.