January 2026 court martial; subsequent administrative separation board
Sasebo and Yokosuka, Japan
Navy Quartermaster First Class, E-6
Allegations: UCMJ Article 115 Communicating a Threat; Article 128 Aggravated Assault by Strangulation; Article 128b Domestic Violence; Article 129 Unlawful Entry; Article 109 Damage to Nonmilitary Property
Facts
The Navy brought seven specifications against a First Class Petty Officer over allegations arising in Sasebo, Japan. They included a threat, strangulation, two acts of domestic violence, unlawful entry, and damage to a television and a car windshield. She had entered the Navy as an E-1 in 2015 and worked her way to E-6. Now she faced a general court martial that could put her in confinement and end the career she had spent a decade building.
The evidence showed that she grabbed her dating partner by the neck. Working with her military defense counsel, Bilecki negotiated a guilty plea to that one domestic violence specification under Article 128b. The other six specifications were withdrawn and dismissed without prejudice, with the dismissals to become permanent after appellate review if the findings and sentence were upheld.
We also negotiated terms that prohibited confinement and a punitive discharge. The remaining sentencing dispute concerned her rank and pay. The judge could reduce her and order forfeitures, but could not send her to confinement or impose a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.
She had continued performing her duties, leading Sailors, and volunteering while the case was pending. Her evaluations recommended advancement and even a commission through the Limited Duty Officer program. Her command made those recommendations while she was facing prosecution. We used that record to argue for preserving her rank.
She also addressed the judge herself. She accepted responsibility and apologized to the victim, the Navy, and her leadership. Her statement explained how she had used what happened to counsel younger Sailors about the consequences of their decisions in personal relationships. We argued that the conviction itself was sufficient punishment in light of her performance while awaiting trial.
The agreement allowed reduction as low as E-3. The Government asked for E-4. The judge reduced her one grade, to E-5, and imposed forfeitures of $1,100 per month for two months. He also recommended suspending both punishments for five months, citing her military service, volunteer work, dedication to the Navy, and conduct while awaiting trial.
Bilecki Law Group worked with military counsel on the clemency request. Her former commanding officer supported her and believed nonjudicial punishment would have been a more appropriate way to handle the case. That support and her evaluations went into the submission, but the request to suspend her reduction was denied in February.
The command later pursued administrative separation. She went before a board and was retained in the Navy. Bilecki Law Group did not represent her at that board.
Result: Seven specifications reduced to one guilty plea. Reduction to E-5 and $2,200 in forfeitures, with no confinement or punitive discharge. Retained in the Navy at a subsequent administrative separation board.
FAQ
Q: Can a military plea agreement prohibit confinement and a punitive discharge?
Yes. A plea agreement can place binding limits on the sentence when its terms are lawful and the military judge accepts it. The protection comes from the actual language of the agreement. In this case, the agreement expressly prohibited confinement and a punitive discharge. Reduction and forfeitures remained available, so the defense still had to address those punishments at sentencing. The agreement allowed reduction to E-3, the Government requested E-4, and the judge imposed E-5. A plea can therefore resolve some sentencing risks while leaving others for the judge to decide. Article 53a, UCMJ.
Q: Does avoiding a punitive discharge prevent the Navy from pursuing administrative separation?
No. A sentence without a punitive discharge does not, by itself, prevent a later administrative separation action. The agreement must be reviewed for what it actually protects. Here, it expressly left administrative separation possible even though confinement and a punitive discharge were prohibited at court martial. The command pursued that separate process, and the Sailor was retained at a board where Bilecki Law Group did not represent her. The practical distinction is between restrictions on a criminal sentence and any commitments concerning continued military service. They need to be addressed separately when evaluating a proposed agreement. Navy separation policy.
Prior results do not predict future outcomes.