No Court-Martial Charges for Fort Bliss Major; Bilecki Contests Permanently Filed GOMOR

No Court-Martial Charges for Fort Bliss Major; Bilecki Contests Permanently Filed GOMOR

June 2022

Fort Bliss, Texas

Army Major – O-4

Allegations: UCMJ Article 120 Abusive Sexual Contact; UCMJ Article 133 Conduct Unbecoming an Officer; Inappropriate Relationship with a Subordinate Soldier

Facts

An Army Air Defense Artillery Major and Battalion Executive Officer at Fort Bliss faced a CID Article 120 abusive sexual contact investigation after a subordinate Sergeant's husband walked into command with seventeen screenshots and a story. Both the Sergeant and her husband were enrolled in the Married Army Couples Program. Both had begun divorce paperwork.

A conviction for the alleged abusive sexual contact could have brought confinement, dismissal and sex-offender registration. His commission and his future outside the Army were at stake.

The reporting timeline mattered.

In early 2022, the husband reported the relationship to command. CID opened an investigation. Our client was relieved as Battalion XO. A Military Protective Order was issued. CID interviewed all three principals over the next several weeks.

Our client retained Bilecki pre-CID interview.

We advised him to exercise his right to remain silent. While CID investigated, we brought Trial Counsel and the Staff Judge Advocate’s office the evidence supporting his account of a consensual relationship: the alleged victim's own contemporaneous statements, the photographs and text messages from her own phone during the relationship, and the 1SG's Memorandum for Record capturing her own "some of it was mutual" admission. The investigation ended without charges being preferred.

The case then ran through the administrative track.

In May 2022, the Convening General signed a GOMOR. The GOMOR cited the inappropriate relationship, inappropriate text messages, sexual acts on and off post within the unit footprint while on duty, an alleged forceful placement of the Sergeant's hand on our client's exposed penis without consent, and conduct unbecoming an officer.

The defense GOMOR Rebuttal Matters memo went in June 2022 with twenty-one enclosures.

The rebuttal centered on the consensual relationship the GOMOR did not acknowledge. The 1SG's contemporaneous Memorandum for Record documenting the Sergeant's own "some of it was mutual" admission was front and center. Character statements from a Captain, a Staff Sergeant, a Specialist, and two Sergeants in the unit addressed the Sergeant's credibility and conduct. Images the Sergeant had sent to our client supported his account of their relationship. We used those images with her statements and the other evidence to contest the coercion allegation; a consensual relationship alone did not establish consent to every encounter. The career achievement record went in: Battery Command OERs, Battalion XO selection, Saint Barbara honors, published articles in the ADA Journal and AUSA, San Diego State Performance Base Graduate Student Program, AMU Masters, CGSC Masters, and an ongoing Doctor of Management degree plan. The rebuttal expressly requested local filing in the MPRJ rather than permanent OMPF or AMHRR filing.

The Convening General filed the GOMOR permanently in the AMHRR.

For an Air Defense Artillery Major and Battalion Executive Officer who walked into the case with a CID Article 120 abusive sexual contact investigation, an MPO, a relief from Battalion XO, and the commission on the line, the criminal track ended without a single charge preferred. No court-martial. No NJP. The administrative track produced a permanent AMHRR filing on the GOMOR, and the rebuttal record on the consensual relationship framing went into the AMHRR with it.

Result: CID investigation closed without preferral. No court-martial. No NJP. GOMOR permanently filed in AMHRR with rebuttal record.

---

FAQ

Q: Why was the First Sergeant’s memorandum important?
It recorded the Sergeant’s statement that “some of it was mutual.” Bilecki used that admission alongside the messages, images and witness statements to challenge the account presented against the Major. We also submitted his service record and requested local filing of the reprimand.

Q: Did the favorable criminal result also remove the GOMOR?
No. No charges were preferred, and the Major faced neither a court-martial nor NJP. The commanding general nevertheless directed permanent filing of the GOMOR. The defense rebuttal accompanied it. The case ended with that administrative penalty, and the result should be understood in full.