Bilecki Wins Full Acquittal in Camp Humphreys Abusive Sexual Contact Trial
January 2026
Camp Humphreys, Korea
Army Sergeant First Class – E-7
Allegations: UCMJ Article 120 Abusive Sexual Contact; UCMJ Article 128 Assault Consummated by Battery
Facts
Every senior NCO at Humphreys should understand how fast a night in the Ville can turn into a career-ending allegation when the wrong people decide to lie.
This was not a case involving two unrelated alleged victims who just happened to tell similar stories. They were close friends. They came to Korea together, moved in the same social circle, were in the same group chat, "literally hang out all the time," and were even listed as each other's emergency contacts. After the report, one of them gave a lieutenant witness a heads-up that CID would be calling, said she needed the lieutenant to speak on her behalf, and previewed what she had told CID. The second alleged victim did not even make her own allegation until CID brought her in as a witness on the first one's complaint. That is not a detail. That is the case.
The government's theory was that our client touched one alleged victim's inner thigh in a taxi around the Juneteenth holiday, then weeks later reached under her skirt at O-Lounge, touched her groin and buttocks, grabbed her arm, and played with her hair. The second alleged victim then claimed that during the same general period he touched her buttocks in the Ville. Put those together and OSTC had exactly what it wanted: two young Soldiers, both friends, both pointing at the same senior NCO in Korea.
But once the case was actually worked, the story fell apart.
The first alleged victim was flirting with our client at O-Lounge, and there was another guy in the picture that night. A lieutenant witness told CID she came out of O-Lounge with the guy she was "talking to," and that same male Soldier was there during the confrontation outside. The second alleged victim confirmed she was outside with that guy when she came down. CID knew about him. CID knew he mattered. CID still never identified him, never interviewed him, and never collected the outside camera footage that could have shown what happened during the missing stretch between the inside video and the punch outside.
That mattered because jealousy was the real motive to fabricate.
Once the flirting got seen, the night got hot, and the only way around that problem was to flip the script, claim sexual assault, and make our client the villain. The first alleged victim then punched him in the face multiple times after he denied putting his hand up her skirt. Everyone agreed on the punch. CID knew about it. CID knew it was corroborated. CID still did not open a separate assault investigation, did not refer it out, and did not even document how it handled that admitted assault under SHARP Safe to Report. It just kept building a case against our client.
The June taxi allegation was just as bad once it was tested. The timeline moved around. The date moved around. The alleged victim shifted between Juneteenth day, "that weekend," and a later Saturday. The lieutenant witness said the only taxi ride was after the Juneteenth barbeque on 19 June and that nothing stood out. CID still did not pull DBIDS for the June dates, did not identify the taxi company or driver, did not get walking-gate or taxi-line CCTV, did not pull barracks footage, and did not do the basic work needed to prove whether the ride even happened the way the government claimed. At one point CID itself found no probable cause on that allegation, and still no meaningful follow-up got done.
The second alleged victim's allegation was even thinner. She said the touching happened in the Ville on Juneteenth weekend, but she could not name the bar, could not give a date, had been drinking, admitted no one saw it, told no one about it at the time, and did not report it until CID brought her in as a witness in the first alleged victim's case. That is not corroboration. That is a tag-along accusation.
Tim Bilecki was the only one who treated this case like our client might actually be innocent.
While the government kept him flagged and on legal hold for more than a year, we flew to Korea multiple times, personally went to O-Lounge, worked the scene, talked to witnesses, and built the case the right way. Then Bilecki did what this case required: he tore it apart in cross-examination. We exposed how close the two alleged victims were, how their stories shifted, how the jealousy motive made sense, how CID ignored the male Soldier who mattered, how the punch was never seriously investigated, how the June allegation was never corroborated, and how the government spent more than a year treating a senior NCO as guilty before it ever proved a thing.
After a full week contested members trial at Camp Humphreys, we won. Our client was acquitted of all charges and specifications. He was fully exonerated.
The two lying Soldiers never got charged. They were never prosecuted. They did not even get so much as a counseling statement. But our client walked out of that courtroom not guilty after OSTC and CID spent more than a year trying to bury him. In Korea, in the SHARP climate, that matters.
Result: Full acquittal after fully contested members trial. Not guilty of all charges and specifications.
FAQ
Q: What did Bilecki do beyond reviewing the investigative file?
He traveled to Korea, went to O-Lounge, worked the scene and developed witnesses. At trial, he compared the accounts with the available video and timeline and questioned CID about the unidentified man, missing outside footage and unanswered questions surrounding the taxi allegation.
Q: How did the relationship between the complainants matter?
The defense showed the panel how closely connected they were, when the second allegation emerged and what one complainant had told a prospective witness before CID contacted her. Those specific facts supported the defense's motive and credibility arguments. Bilecki tested each allegation through cross-examination, and the panel acquitted our client of everything.
Prior results do not predict future outcomes.