Bilecki Defends Grafenwoehr Staff Sergeant Through Two Investigations Without Court-Martial Charges

Bilecki Defends Grafenwoehr Staff Sergeant Through Two Investigations Without Court-Martial Charges

May 2022 (second allegation cleared August 2022)

U.S. Army Health Clinic Grafenwoehr, Germany

Army Staff Sergeant – E-6

Allegations: UCMJ Article 120 Sexual Assault; Separate SHARP Allegation

Facts

An Army Staff Sergeant assigned to the U.S. Army Health Clinic at Grafenwoehr got hit twice. Neither investigation resulted in preferred charges.

The first investigation came out of a Friday night barracks party in Grafenwoehr in fall 2020. The complainant was a Soldier from a National Guard medical company on rotation. She reported the allegation months after the alleged conduct, and only after she had returned to her home command. The case bounced from her home post CID to Grafenwoehr CID in late 2021. CID worked the file for another five months and issued the Final Law Enforcement Report in early 2022.

The Special Victim Prosecutor at the OSJA opined probable cause for Article 120 sexual assault. The CID report read: "There is sufficient evidence to provide to command for consideration of action."

Our client retained Bilecki on the first complaint while CID was still working the file. The work was at the command level, before any preferral decision. We engaged the Commander directly with the contemporaneous record the CID file had not surfaced as cleanly: the alleged victim's months-late reporting after she had already returned to her home command, the limits of what the witness statements actually said about the night, and the character record on our client. The objective was to give the Commander what she needed to apply her own R.C.M. 306 disposition discretion against an SVP probable cause opinion.

In May 2022, the command decided not to pursue court-martial charges. She issued a Letter of Concern instead. Her own document said it: "For a variety of reasons, the command has decided not to pursue court-martial charges." The Letter of Concern was filed locally for up to 18 months or until reassignment to another GCM jurisdiction, whichever came first. The Soldier stayed on active duty.

Then the second complaint surfaced.

In August 2022, a different complainant made a SHARP allegation at the same clinic. The command moved fast. Our client was put on a Flag Code M (Law Enforcement Investigation), placed under a Military Protective Order, given a place-of-duty change to a headquarters staff section, ordered into command-directed behavioral health, and ordered out of his assigned barracks. The DA Form 4856 counseling delivered the AR 635-200 paragraph 17-3 advisement that the alleged misconduct could result in initiation of administrative separation proceedings with possible Honorable, General, or Other Than Honorable characterization.

Our client retained Bilecki for the second SHARP investigation the same week the AR 635-200 paragraph 17-3 advisement was served.

We moved the MPO. It was updated and rescinded a month later. In response to the separation advisement, we argued that the command should wait for CID to finish its investigation before pursuing separation, particularly when the second complainant was not cooperating. The AdSep track sat on the shelf until the CID file resolved. Article 31 invocation held through the second CID interview cycle. We submitted the existing first-allegation record to the OSJA as the framework for assessing what the second allegation could and could not add.

Tim Bilecki traveled to Grafenwoehr, Germany for the pre-charging engagement on both allegations.

The second SHARP allegation closed without a referral to court-martial. No NJP. No GOMOR. No other adverse administrative action. No administrative separation. The Soldier remained on active duty.

Result: The first allegation ended with a locally filed Letter of Concern. The second closed without further adverse action. No court-martial, NJP, GOMOR or administrative separation followed, and the Soldier continued in service.

---

FAQ

Q: How did Bilecki address the first probable-cause opinion?
In this 2022 case, Bilecki presented the timing of the report, the limits of the witness accounts and the Staff Sergeant’s character record to the command before charges were preferred. The command chose a locally filed Letter of Concern rather than court-martial charges. This account describes the authority exercised then, before later changes to covered-offense disposition authority.

Q: What did the defense do when the second allegation appeared?
We addressed the protective order and separation advisement, urged the command to wait for the investigation, and kept our client from giving an interview statement. The protective order was later rescinded. The second case closed without further adverse action. Investigators remained free to examine other evidence; invoking rights did not itself end the investigation.