Marine Continues Serving Despite Five Family Advocacy Findings After Bilecki’s Rebuttal

Marine Continues Serving Despite Five Family Advocacy Findings After Bilecki’s Rebuttal

April 2021

Marine Corps Base Hawaii, Kaneohe Bay

Marine Corporal – E-4

Allegations: UCMJ Article 128b Domestic Violence; UCMJ Article 120 Sexual Assault; UCMJ Article 112a Wrongful Use of a Controlled Substance; UCMJ Article 134 Extramarital Sexual Conduct

Facts

A Marine Corporal at Kaneohe Bay was looking at a Family Advocacy file with his name on it that included four alleged intimate partner physical abuse incidents, one alleged intimate partner sexual abuse incident, and a defense engagement scoped to potential UCMJ charges including domestic violence, aggravated assault, use of an illegal substance, and adultery. The Incident Determination Committee under MCO 1754.11 was about to make findings. The IDC is administrative, not punitive, but the findings can lead to command consideration of Page 11 entries, 6105 counseling, NJP, administrative separation, or UCMJ charges. Those are separate decisions, not automatic consequences.

Bilecki was retained before charges and before the IDC convened.

The defense theory was that the spouse had her own conduct on the line and needed the abuse allegations to land first. The defense had documented her affair in real time on dashcam and phone footage, including footage of her communicating with another man during the same window the abuse allegations covered. The abuse allegations followed her own exposure. The Family Advocacy file became the vehicle. Our client had taken the unusual step of having his spouse sign a written sexual consent form. We included that form as part of the relationship record. It did not establish consent to every later encounter or prevent either person from withdrawing consent.

The IDC ran the seven alleged incidents through MCO 1754.11. Five came back "met criteria": four physical abuse allegations and one sexual abuse allegation, all framed as service member toward spouse. Two did not meet criteria. A counter allegation of spouse on service member abuse, and an emotional abuse claim.

Five "met criteria" findings on a single Marine usually pull command attention with them. The command had every option. Refer the matter for UCMJ charges. Initiate Article 15 NJP. Process administrative separation. Drop a Page 11. Counsel under 6105.

The command chose none of those.

We submitted a defense package to the command before the IDC convened, putting the dashcam footage, the phone record of the spouse's communications with the other man, the written sexual consent form, and the documented motive in front of the chain of command at the same time the IDC was working the file. The command went into the IDC briefing already knowing what the IDC sheet would not show. When the five "met criteria" findings came back, the command had the full picture next to them and decided not to take additional disciplinary or separation action.

Result: No UCMJ charges. No NJP. No Page 11. No 6105 counseling. No administrative separation. Marine continued serving.

---

FAQ

Q: Were the five Family Advocacy findings overturned?
No. Four allegations of physical abuse and one allegation of sexual abuse met the Family Advocacy criteria. Those findings remained. The command nevertheless took no UCMJ, NJP, Page 11, 6105 counseling or administrative separation action against the Marine.

Q: What did Bilecki put before the command?
Before the committee met, we submitted the dashcam and phone material, the spouse’s communications with another man, the written form from the relationship and the defense’s evidence of a motive to fabricate. Our purpose was to have the command consider that record when deciding what action to take. This account does not mean that the committee was forbidden to consider credibility or contrary evidence.