Bilecki Presents Contradictory Accounts; JBLM Sexual Assault Investigation Deferred

Bilecki Presents Contradictory Accounts; JBLM Sexual Assault Investigation Deferred

October 2024

Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington

Army Private First Class – E-3

Allegations: UCMJ Article 120 Sexual Assault

Facts

An Army Private First Class in the medical and nursing pipeline at JBLM was under an Article 120 CID investigation that followed a counter-complaint after our client filed his own harassment report against a fellow PFC trainee. Maximum exposure on a referred Article 120 court-martial: years of confinement, possible Dishonorable Discharge, federal felony record, and federal sex offender registration.

The Government's case had a context the CID file did not capture on its face.

Our client had filed a Memorandum for Record on a March 2024 incident at the Madigan dining facility documenting harassment by a fellow PFC in his nursing class. The counter-allegation against our client emerged from a close friend of that fellow PFC the next month. The two counter-complainants had a documented relationship that ran through the harassment report our client had filed first.

Our client retained Bilecki the same week the counter-allegation was reported.

We built the OSTC submission around the documentary record of the prior harassment MFR, the timeline showing the counter-allegation post-dated the harassment report, the absence of a percipient witness on the alleged conduct, and the documented relationship between the two counter-complainants. We walked OSTC trial counsel through that record before the disposition decision was made.

OSTC deferred the case in October 2024 for insufficient evidence.

No charges preferred. No NJP. No Letter of Reprimand. No GOMOR.

Result: OSTC deferred for insufficient evidence. No charges preferred. No SORNA.

---

FAQ

Q: What did the earlier harassment report establish?
It fixed the sequence of events. Our client had put his own complaint in writing before the sexual-assault allegation emerged. Bilecki combined that timeline with the relationship between the people involved to explain the defense's retaliation argument. The sequence and relationships gave OSTC concrete evidence to consider, rather than an unsupported claim about motive.

Q: What decision did OSTC make?
OSTC deferred the matter for insufficient evidence. No charges, NJP or reprimand followed. The defense submission addressed the weaknesses of this allegation under the criminal disposition process; it did not ask OSTC to apply a general administrative preponderance standard.