Manila Port Call Case: Two Sexual Contact Specifications Withdrawn; Eighteen Months and BCD

Manila Port Call Case: Two Sexual Contact Specifications Withdrawn; Eighteen Months and BCD

May 2026

Fleet Activities Yokosuka, Japan / Manila, Philippines

USS MILIUS

Navy Petty Officer Third Class | E-4

Allegations: UCMJ Article 120 Sexual Assault; UCMJ Article 120 Abusive Sexual Contact; UCMJ Article 120 Abusive Sexual Contact

Facts

A Navy E-4 stationed at Yokosuka and assigned to USS MILIUS was on liberty in Manila when he ended up going out with three other Sailors who did not really want him there. He was not part of their group. He was socially awkward, out of place, and trying to fit into a liberty crew where the dynamic was already set before he arrived.

The group drank heavily. Dinner turned into more drinking, and the night eventually moved to the Microtel in Manila. The Sailors had two hotel rooms between them. By the time they got back to the hotel, one of the junior Sailors was drunk, and the others claimed they put him in the shower to sober him up.

That shower became one of the Government's Article 120 specifications. The facts were not clean. The junior Sailor was being soaped up and scrubbed with a loofah while our client was also getting undressed. Another Sailor was part of that shower sequence before leaving for the other hotel room. The Government later charged the shower conduct as abusive sexual contact. The defense was prepared to try that allegation on consent and mistake of fact as to consent.

After the other Sailor left, our client and the junior Sailor remained in the hotel room. The junior Sailor apparently fell asleep. Our client later said he performed oral sex for approximately ten seconds, realized what he was doing, stopped, and returned to his own bed.

The junior Sailor did not wake up and report that act the next morning because he did not know it happened. The case started because rumors moved around the ship the next day about the shower incident and an alleged butt grab in the hotel lobby. The junior Sailor's LPO overheard the talk and reported it.

When investigators brought our client in, they were investigating the shower and lobby allegations. During that interview, our client disclosed the hotel room oral sex. They did not learn it from the complaining witness. They did not even suspect it. Our client told them. After a cleansing warning, he gave the statement again.

The Government charged all three incidents: the alleged lobby contact, the shower allegation, and the hotel room oral sex. Tim Bilecki was retained after charges were preferred. Bilecki traveled to Japan twice, including for the sentencing hearing. The Navy defense investigator also traveled to Manila, Philippines, interviewed hotel workers, obtained CCTV footage, and reconstructed what happened at the Microtel.

Before the scheduled January proceeding went forward, Bilecki and the defense team raised concerns about the Sailor’s ability to assist in his defense. Detailed counsel requested a mental-condition inquiry based in part on behavior observed by civilian defense counsel. The court proceeding was delayed for that inquiry.

The defense was prepared to try the case. The shower allegation had real consent and mistake of fact issues. The hotel room allegation had a different sentencing story than the Government wanted to tell because the most serious act was not reported by the complaining witness. It came from our client's own statement during an interrogation that began with lesser allegations.

Our client decided he wanted to accept responsibility. The early plea posture was 3 to 5 years confinement. Bilecki negotiated the case down to one sustained Article 120 sexual assault specification. The two abusive sexual contact specifications were withdrawn and dismissed without prejudice to ripen into prejudice after appellate review if the findings and sentence are upheld.

The confinement limitation in the plea agreement was the critical sentencing fight. For the sustained Article 120 sexual assault specification, the applicable sentencing parameter was 30 to 120 months confinement. Thirty months was the floor. Through the plea agreement, Bilecki negotiated a confinement limitation that allowed the Military Judge to sentence our client to as little as 1 month and no more than 30 months confinement. Because 30 months was the sentencing floor under the applicable parameter, it had to appear in the agreement. The defense turned that number into the cap.

The agreement also capped the punitive discharge at a Bad-Conduct Discharge, not a Dishonorable Discharge, and specified no forfeitures, no fines, no reduction, and no other lawful punishment.

At sentencing, the Military Judge adjudged 18 months confinement, a Bad-Conduct Discharge, no adjudged forfeitures, fines, or reduction. Automatic reduction and forfeiture rules are separate from the punishment announced in court. The two abusive sexual contact specifications were dismissed.

Result: Eighteen months confinement. Bad-Conduct Discharge, not Dishonorable Discharge. No forfeitures or reduction adjudged. Two Article 120 abusive sexual contact specifications withdrawn at plea.

---

FAQ

Q: Why did the defense investigation in Manila matter?
Because the case came from what happened inside a hotel during a heavily intoxicated port-call night, not from a simple, one-location allegation. The Navy defense investigator traveled to Manila, interviewed hotel workers, obtained CCTV footage, and reconstructed the movement of the Sailors through the Microtel. In an Article 120 case involving alcohol, multiple Sailors, two hotel rooms, a shower sequence, and later shipboard rumors, the physical setting and witness timeline mattered.

Q: Why was consent and mistake of fact as to consent part of the defense theory?
The shower allegation did not happen in isolation. The junior Sailor was being put into the shower by other Sailors who claimed they were trying to sober him up. He was being soaped up and scrubbed with a loofah while our client was also getting undressed. Another Sailor was present before leaving for the other room. Those facts created a trial issue on what our client understood, what he perceived, and whether he had a reasonable mistake of fact as to consent.

Q: Why did the reporting sequence matter?
The most serious allegation was not reported by the complaining witness. The next-day report started with shipboard rumors about the shower and an alleged lobby butt grab. When investigators questioned our client about those incidents, he disclosed the hotel room oral sex himself. After a cleansing warning, he gave the statement again. That sequence mattered for sentencing because the act was not discovered through a victim report or independent investigation. It came from our client's own statement.

Q: What changed in the plea agreement?
The case began as a three-specification Article 120 general court-martial. The plea resolved the case with one sustained Article 120 sexual assault specification. The two abusive sexual contact specifications were withdrawn and dismissed without prejudice to ripen into prejudice after appellate review if the findings and sentence are upheld.

Q: How did the plea agreement change the confinement exposure?
The applicable sentencing parameter for the sustained Article 120 sexual assault specification was 30 to 120 months confinement. The plea agreement allowed the Military Judge to sentence our client to as little as 1 month and no more than 30 months confinement. The 30-month number, which would have been the floor under the sentencing parameter, became the cap under the plea agreement. The Military Judge adjudged 18 months.