soldier saluting

Child Sexual Assault , Assault , Communication of a Threat , Witness Intimidation. FTR , Disobeying a Lawful Order , Drunk and Disorderly Conduct | Case Result

May 2020
Location: Schofield Barracks, Hawaii Rank: Army, E-2
Charges: Child Sexual Assault, Assault, Communication of a Threat, Witness Intimidation, FTR, Disobeying a Lawful Order, Drunk and Disorderly Conduct Result: Child Sexual Assault Charges Not Preferred at Court Martial. All Other Charges Disposed of with a Chapter 10.

May 2020

Location:

Schofield Barracks, Hawaii

Rank:

  • Army

  • E-2

Charges:

  • Child Sexual Assault.
  •  Assault.
  • Communication of a Threat.
  • Witness Intimidation.
  • FTR.
  • Disobeying a Lawful Order.
  • Drunk and Disorderly Conduct. 

Result:

Child Sexual Assault Charges Not Preferred at Court Martial.  All Other Charges Disposed of with a Chapter 10.

An Army Soldier was falsely accused of sexual assault by his stepdaughter in the midst of a tumultuous divorce proceeding.  Military Sexual Assault Defense Attorney Tim Bilecki was retained immediately after our client became aware of the allegations.  Our law firm quickly put a defense team on the case to conduct our own investigation into the case to determine the validity of the allegations.  The investigation by both the Army Criminal Investigative Division (CID) and our office was extensive, including several digital forensic examinations conducted by the law firm’s digital forensic investigator.

After the conclusion of the investigation, the most serious charges of sexual assault of a minor were dropped.  However, charges for other surrounding offenses were preferred against our client.  The government went all in with its charge sheet, which included one specification of failure to report in violation of Article 86, UCMJ; two specifications of willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer in violation of Article 90, UCMJ; two specifications of being incapacitated while on duty in violation of Article 112, UCMJ; two specifications of communicating a threat in violation of Article 115, UCMJ; one specification of assault consummated by battery in violation of Article 128, UCMJ; one specification of witness intimidation in violation of Article 128, UCMJ; and finally, one specification of drunk and disorderly conduct in violation of Article 134, UCMJ.  The charge sheet was as long as it was comprehensive. 

Attorney Bilecki continued to fight the case and prepared to take it to a fully contested jury trial.  In the process of pre-trial litigation, Bilecki was able to negotiate a Chapter 10, in which all charges and specifications would be withdrawn and dismissed in exchange for administrative separation.

Scroll to Top