Navy Chief’s Eight-Specification Case Reduced to Three Convictions; Twenty-Four Months and BCD

Navy Chief’s Eight-Specification Case Reduced to Three Convictions; Twenty-Four Months and BCD

March 2026

NAS Whidbey Island, Washington

Navy Chief Petty Officer | E-7

Allegations: UCMJ Article 81 Conspiracy; UCMJ Article 82 Solicitation; UCMJ Article 80 Attempted Distribution; UCMJ Article 134 Wrongful Distribution of Child Pornography; UCMJ Article 134 Wrongful Receiving and Viewing of Child Pornography; Additional Article 134 Specifications

Facts

A Navy Chief at NAS Whidbey Island was pulled into a CSAM investigation that started with a NCMEC CyberTipline report and then moved through NCIS, Meta records, Google subscriber and access records, Kik data, Mega.nz links, and device extractions.

The companion federal case involving another Navy Chief went very differently. That Chief was prosecuted in federal court and sentenced to 25 years in prison for production of child sexual abuse material. The DOJ release described an NCIS investigation that began with NCMEC information, Facebook Messenger evidence, searches in Italy, CSAM found on multiple devices, and surreptitious bathroom recordings involving a minor.

Our client was charged in the military system, not federal court. The Government preferred an eight-specification general court-martial charge sheet across conspiracy, solicitation, attempted distribution, wrongful distribution, wrongful receiving and viewing, and two additional Article 134 specifications outside the CSAM framework. On paper, the maximum exposure ran past 90 years of confinement, with a Dishonorable Discharge risk and the higher registration consequences attached to the distribution allegations.

Tim Bilecki was retained in April 2024, about eighteen months before charges were preferred. That gave the defense time to work the case before the charge sheet existed. The defense was not just reacting to specifications after preferral. It was already looking at the digital trail: what was actually sent, what was only linked, who accessed what, what the platforms recorded, what the devices showed, and what the companion witness could and could not say.

The distribution allegations were the most damaging part of the military case. The Government had to prove more than bad material existed. The defense examined what the Mega.nz links made available, who could access them, what the records showed about downloads and what was on the devices. Those details mattered to whether the government could prove the distribution actually charged. That was where the defense work mattered most.

The plea agreement cut the case from eight specifications to three. Five specifications came off the case at plea, including both wrongful distribution specifications and the two additional Article 134 specifications outside the CSAM framework. The Government withdrew those specifications and dismissed them without prejudice to ripen into prejudice after appellate review if the findings and sentence are upheld.

The three remaining specifications resolved by plea were solicitation of distribution of child pornography, attempted distribution of child pornography, and a modified wrongful viewing specification. The receiving language was excepted out. The conviction was for viewing, not receiving and viewing.

That change carried real consequences. Based on the offenses of conviction, removing the completed-distribution specifications changed the conviction record; the registration effect must account for the remaining solicitation and attempted-distribution convictions as well as viewing. The remaining solicitation and attempted-distribution convictions also carried registration consequences; this was not a viewing-only disposition.

The plea agreement also capped the punitive discharge at a Bad-Conduct Discharge, not a Dishonorable Discharge. Confinement was limited to 24 to 36 months total, with confinement on the remaining specifications running concurrently.

Tim Bilecki traveled to NAS Whidbey Island for the guilty plea and sentencing hearing. The Military Judge sentenced our client to 24 months confinement, the floor of the agreement, with a Bad-Conduct Discharge, total forfeitures, and reduction to E-1.

The companion federal case involved production and resulted in 25 years. This client's different convictions resulted in 24 months. The original charge sheet had eight specifications. The final plea had three. The distribution specifications were withdrawn. The Dishonorable Discharge did not land.

Result: Eight specifications cut to three. Distribution specifications withdrawn. 24 months confinement, BCD, total forfeitures, and reduction to E-1.

---

FAQ

Q: What did the final convictions include?
Solicitation of distribution, attempted distribution and wrongful viewing. The completed-distribution specifications and other allegations were withdrawn, but attempted distribution and solicitation remained. Our client received twenty-four months of confinement, a bad conduct discharge, total forfeitures and reduction to E-1.

Q: Why mention the federal case?
The other Chief's production case showed the seriousness of the broader investigation. His twenty-five-year sentence concerned different conduct and different convictions. It is context, not a claim that our client faced the same proved facts or would necessarily have received the same sentence. Bilecki's work narrowed this client's eight specifications to three and secured a sentence at the bottom of the negotiated range.