CASE 2026-07 | CAMP HUMPHREYS, REPUBLIC OF KOREA | ARMY O-3
Bilecki Defeats Both Sexual Touch Allegations and Chaplain Confidentiality Claim at Camp Humphreys BOI; Captain Retained
July 2026
Camp Humphreys, Republic of Korea
Army Captain – O-3
Allegations: UCMJ Article 120 Abusive Sexual Contact; Wrongful Disclosure of Chaplain Confidential Communications; UCMJ Article 133 Conduct Unbecoming
Facts
The Army tried to end a chaplain's career over one night in the Ville outside Camp Humphreys. By the time the case reached a Board of Inquiry, the night had become two allegations of sexual touching, an accusation that he betrayed a confidential chaplain communication, a permanent GOMOR, and conduct unbecoming. Tim Bilecki and Ben Gold went to Korea and tried the case. The Board rejected both sexual touching allegations, rejected the confidentiality allegation, and retained the Captain.
The night began because our client was leaving Korea the next morning. His wife had flown to Los Angeles, and he had a morning flight to Washington for temporary duty. He slept, woke near midnight, and walked into the Ville around 0100 to sing karaoke and begin adjusting his body clock. Near 0400, as he was about to find a taxi, he encountered another Army Captain, an Army Major, and a Filipina civilian woman. They invited him to join them.
The setting mattered. The Ville has ordinary bars, karaoke rooms, and establishments locally known as "juicy bars." Those bars employ hostesses, commonly called "juicy girls," who sit with customers and encourage them to buy drinks. The complainant worked at Bugatti, another bar in the district. She had also been dating the other Captain for several weeks and had begun learning that he was married and had a child. She wanted answers about him.
Our client testified that the group went to Eagles to play pool before entering Curtain Call at 0548. The inside camera showed them together as a social group. At approximately 0603, our client and the complainant spoke face to face and hugged. CID later characterized a hand movement during that encounter as a buttocks touch and wrote that she moved his hand. Less than a minute later, they were still seated and talking. They left Curtain Call together.
Outside, they stopped near the curb by Western Pub, across from Red Onion. The complainant later alleged that our client reached under her red minidress and touched her groin over her underwear. She also alleged a neck grab and attempted kiss. The other Captain retold the allegation as hands going "down her pants," even though she had been wearing a minidress.
The story became more specific as it moved away from the only two people on the street. The Army Major who had been with the group saw no sexual advance and no sexual touching. Her account of what the complainant first told her was materially narrower than the later allegation that our client had put a hand under the dress. The other Captain claimed to the command that he had witnessed repeated unwanted advances, but later admitted that he could not see the pair after they left Curtain Call. He saw none of the alleged street contact. He was nevertheless the person who began texting immediately and called the battalion commander at approximately 0730 to drive the report.
Our client was already gone. A taxi receipt showed that he entered a cab at 0633 for a preplanned 110-kilometer trip to the airport. During the ride, he and the complainant spoke after the other Captain told him there was a problem. She began recording only after the call was underway. Our client apologized for drinking too much and said he guessed he had crossed a line with the group. When told that he had touched her, he asked, "What happened?" He did not admit touching her buttocks or groin, and he did not admit disclosing a privileged communication.
The complainant contacted CID. The next day, she asked that the case not proceed, wrote that she could "let it go," and said she did not want her name involved. CID told her the investigation would continue. She later repeated a generalized allegation, so the defense did not call her withdrawal a recantation. She did not testify at the Board. The other Captain who drove the report did not testify either. The Government's only live witness from the group was the Major, and she had seen none of the charged touching.
The allegations were nevertheless placed into a permanent GOMOR and an officer elimination action with five separate bases. Two were the alleged sexual touches. One was the alleged disclosure of a confidential chaplain communication. The remaining bases were the presence of the GOMOR in his AMHRR and conduct unbecoming. No court-martial charge had been preferred, but the Board still had the power to end his commission and military career.
Tim Bilecki and Ben Gold traveled to Camp Humphreys for the hearing. The first fight was over what the cameras actually showed, because CID's summaries made three different systems sound simpler than they were.
The Curtain Call camera recorded the group inside the bar from 0548 until shortly after 0605. The public street camera stored its running time in a hidden subtitle track and filmed from far enough away that a utility pole repeatedly blocked the pair. The Western Pub system was motion activated, not continuous. CID had captured it by pointing a cell phone at a monitor, and the displayed clock was one hour fast. The defense extracted the times, corrected the error of one hour, and played the footage at the hearing so the Board could compare CID's words with the images themselves.
Inside Curtain Call, the video showed the hug, the disputed hand movement, continued conversation, and both people leaving together. Outside, the public camera was distant and obstructed, and CID repeatedly wrote that identification was unclear. The Western Pub description said only that a hand "appeared to touch" the complainant's left thigh. It did not describe a groin touch. CID's summary of the obstructed public camera footage used "neck" language, while its clearer Western Pub description said that he cupped the side of her head. The cameras then showed the pair walking together. They did not show the push and immediate flight described in the first account.
The Major's CID account and her testimony under cross examination supplied what the silent footage could not. Although she was the complainant's friend, her account was that she saw no approach, no flirting, no sexual advance, and no charged touching by our client. She also confirmed that the complainant had been seeking information about the married Captain. The officer who turned the morning into a command report could not see the street encounter. The only person who claimed to have experienced it was absent.
The confidentiality allegation was just as concrete. The complainant claimed that our client said he was a priest and that the other Captain had "confessed his deeds" to him. Our client was a Protestant pastor, not a priest. He testified that he had never taken a confession from the Captain, had not served as his spiritual advisor on the matter, and had not repeated a privileged communication. The complainant already knew about the investigation from the other Captain and was trying to learn whether he was married and had children. Our client said he told her that the married Captain was not her "ticket out of the Ville."
Months before this night, our client had written a memorandum that invoked chaplain confidentiality and withheld sensitive details about that Captain's family situation. It showed that on that earlier occasion, he had treated the information as protected. The acting Eighth Army command chaplain testified about chaplain confidentiality practice. The defense argued that the accusation confused ordinary information the complainant already knew with a privileged disclosure that had never occurred. The Board later found no basis for the allegation, but issued no written explanation for its finding.
Our client took the oath and told the Board his own story. He accepted responsibility for drinking until morning, being in the Ville, and creating terrible optics for a married chaplain. He denied a sexual purpose, denied putting a hand under her dress, denied trying to kiss her, and denied betraying a confidence. He explained that the apology concerned inserting himself into a volatile relationship between the complainant and the married Captain, not confessing to sexual contact. He also told the Board that he had stopped drinking and wanted to continue serving.
Then six additional defense witnesses testified about the chaplain the Army was deciding whether to lose: a Colonel, a retired Lieutenant Colonel, the acting Eighth Army command chaplain, two Command Sergeants Major, and an Army behavioral health psychologist. Together, they allowed the defense to show his work from the command, chaplain, enlisted leadership, and behavioral health perspectives. One Command Sergeant Major said that even if the alleged misconduct had occurred, he would take the chaplain back "absolutely" and "right now."
That testimony matched four top officer evaluations, the unanimous retention recommendations from his command, more than 30 support letters, and a career that began as an enlisted Marine before he became an Army chaplain.
The Board found a basis for the GOMOR because it remained in his AMHRR and found a basis for conduct unbecoming. It found no basis for the alleged buttocks touch, no basis for the alleged groin touch, and no basis for the alleged breach of chaplain confidentiality. It retained him in the Army.
Result: No basis for either alleged sexual touch and no basis for the alleged chaplain confidentiality breach. Basis found only for the GOMOR in the AMHRR and conduct unbecoming. Captain retained.
FAQ
Q: How did the defense use three surveillance systems against both sexual touching allegations?
The three systems recorded different portions of the morning and could not simply be played as though their clocks matched. Curtain Call showed the group inside the bar, including the embrace, disputed hand movement, continued conversation, and the pair leaving together. The public street camera stored time in a hidden subtitle track, filmed from a distance, and was repeatedly blocked by a utility pole. The Western Pub camera was motion activated, had been filmed from a monitor with a cell phone, and displayed time one hour fast. Bilecki Law Group extracted the times, corrected the hour, and placed the two outside views on the actual chronology. CID's clearest description said only that a hand appeared to touch the complainant's left thigh, not her groin. Its two summaries also described the other visible contact differently: one used "neck" language, while the clearer Western Pub account described a hand cupping the side of her head. The defense used those limits and contradictions to argue that the videos did not prove either alleged sexual touch. The Board separately found no basis for either allegation and did not issue a written rationale.
Q: Did the complainant withdraw or recant the allegations before the Board of Inquiry?
She withdrew, but she did not clearly recant. One day after contacting CID, she asked that the matter not proceed, wrote that she could let it go, and said she did not want her name involved. CID continued anyway. She later repeated a generalized allegation, so the defense did not turn the withdrawal into something it was not. The defense instead emphasized that she did not testify, the Army Major saw no sexual advance or touching, and the Captain who drove the report could not see the street encounter and also did not testify. The two outside cameras never showed a hand going under her dress to touch her groin, and CID's clearest description referred only to an apparent touch at the thigh. Bilecki argued that the Army was asking the Board to accept a changing hearsay account without live testimony from the only person who said she experienced the street contact. The Board found no basis for either touching allegation and did not state why.
Q: How could the Board find conduct unbecoming and still retain the Captain?
A Board of Inquiry decides each alleged basis and then separately decides whether the officer should be retained. Our client testified and owned the parts of the night that were true: he drank until morning, put himself in the Ville, and exercised poor judgment inconsistent with his role as a married chaplain. He denied the alleged sexual acts and confidentiality breach. The Board found no basis for either sexual touch and no basis for the confidentiality accusation, but found a basis for conduct unbecoming and for the fact that a GOMOR remained in his AMHRR. The defense then asked the Board to decide retention on the whole officer, not one night. Six defense witnesses, four top evaluations, more than 30 letters, unanimous command recommendations, and a career that began as an enlisted Marine showed the Army what it would lose by eliminating him. The Board issued no written rationale, but retained him.
Prior results do not predict future outcomes.