Army SFC Receives 18 Months and Dishonorable Discharge After Contested Child Sexual Abuse Trial

Army SFC Receives 18 Months and Dishonorable Discharge After Contested Child Sexual Abuse Trial

November 2021

Wheeler Army Airfield, Hawaii

Army Sergeant First Class – E-7

Allegations: UCMJ Article 120b Sexual Abuse of a Child (4 specifications)

Facts

The government charged an Army Sergeant First Class with four specifications of Article 120b sexual abuse of a child against his adoptive daughter. Maximum confinement on the charge sheet ran to sixty years. The Government's best pretrial offer required a guilty plea on all four specifications with a confinement floor of ten years. The defense did not take the offer. After a fully contested seven-day general court-martial at Wheeler, the panel adjudged eighteen months of confinement and a dishonorable discharge.

The case turned on Reactive Attachment Disorder. The alleged victim had been pulled from a home of alcohol and drug abuse at seven months old, bounced through seven foster placements before age five, and was diagnosed with RAD before our client and his wife ever adopted her. RAD is a DSM-5 diagnosis specific to children traumatized before age five. The defense expert explained how the diagnosis, documented manipulation and changing accounts applied to this child. The diagnosis was part of our evidentiary argument; it did not by itself establish that the allegation was false.

That diagnosis predated the allegation by years. That is what the defense had to put in front of the panel.

The Government's case rested on the alleged victim's account, a text our client had sent her after the disclosure ("you know I love you and I am not mad and I deserve what's about to happen"), three deleted Messenger messages between them, and a remote factory reset of her phone via the parental control software installed on his. The motive context was direct. The family had moved to Hawaii in 2020 and the alleged victim hated the move. COVID kept her in a house she did not want to be in. In late 2020 our client had found photos on her phone of her in bed with a boy and messages telling that boy she was pregnant. She was grounded. The family flew to Colorado for the holidays. Hours after overhearing her two older half-sisters discuss their own histories of foster-care abuse, the alleged victim disclosed to one of them.

Her account did not stay put. Pre-ejaculate detail in one version. A "pink silicon device" in another. A "sex education" framing to her sister. None of that to the forensic interviewer at the Children's Justice Center. "Blanked out" memory and a movie at trial.

That was the case the defense had to take to a panel.

Our client retained Bilecki five days after the CID referral. We built the RAD foundation pre-charging. The R.C.M. 405(k) supplemental matters at the Article 32 put the RAD diagnosis, the documented manipulation history, the contradicting versions of the disclosure, and the Colorado motive in front of the Preliminary Hearing Officer. The PHO Report quoted the defense framework directly.

The Government denied the defense request for a forensic counseling expert. We litigated under R.C.M. 703(d) and won a Court Order from the Military Judge compelling expert funding. Ms. Amy B. Swigart, MS, an attachment disorder specialist with over twenty years treating RAD children and a Pennsylvania Juvenile Court parole officer who trains judges and law enforcement on RAD, was appointed as defense expert.

The Military Judge granted the Government's M.R.E. 404(b) motion in limine and ruled the deleted Messenger messages, the parental-control phone reset, and the "I deserve what's about to happen" text admissible as common scheme and consciousness of guilt. The defense lost that motion. We had to win the panel despite the loss.

Tim Bilecki traveled to Wheeler Army Airfield, Hawaii for the contested general court-martial. Our client elected an enlisted panel. Trial ran seven days.

Cross-examination of the alleged victim drove the case. We walked her through every version of the disclosure: the disclosure to her sister in Colorado, the CID interview, the Children's Justice Center forensic interview, and her trial testimony. The pre-ejaculate detail that appeared in one version and not the next. The "pink silicon device" that morphed across tellings. The shower entry that was declined in one account and completed in another. The implausibility of the Walmart trip timeline against the charged window. The cross of the CID Special Agent walked the panel through the investigation defects, including a key interview with our client's spouse the agent did not record despite recording every other interview in the case.

The Government's rebuttal expert had never previously testified as an expert. On cross, the defense walked him through the alleged victim's seven-foster-home history of severe early deprivation. He conceded the RAD diagnosis was reasonable on the documentary record. The Government's own expert had given the panel the foundation the defense had been building since pre-charging.

Amy Swigart took the panel through the RAD framework on direct: the seven foster placements before age five, the diagnosed manipulation behaviors documented across the prior duty stations, the disclosure pattern the RAD treatment community has documented for decades, and the application to this alleged victim's case file. The panel now had a clinical lens for the inconsistencies in the alleged victim's account and the timing of the disclosure.

The panel returned guilty on all four specifications.

We had lost on the findings. Bilecki continued fighting at sentencing, where the amount of confinement still had to be decided.

The defense moved for unreasonable multiplication of charges at sentencing. The Military Judge merged Specifications 1, 2, and 3 for sentencing purposes, capping the sentencing exposure. The Government argued five years confinement, reduction to E-1, no forfeitures.

The defense sentencing case was the RAD residue from the merits. The clinical reality of the alleged victim's documented RAD diagnosis did not change because the panel had returned a verdict. She still had the documented manipulation history. She still had the inconsistent accounts on the record. The conduct, even on the verdict, was a brief and isolated period during a documented family crisis in a fourteen-year career. Defense sentencing witnesses included a senior NCO peer who testified he would deploy with our client tomorrow and a chain-of-command officer who framed the conduct as a brief mistake in the totality of the career.

The panel adjudged eighteen months of confinement and a dishonorable discharge.

Eighteen months against a sixty-year maximum exposure. Eighteen months against a Government pretrial offer floor of ten years. By trying the case, the defense beat the Government's best plea by more than eight years and preserved issues for appellate review that a guilty plea could have limited or waived.

Our client had contested the charges and lost. The eighteen-month confinement term was nevertheless more than eight years below the Government’s proposed plea floor. The dishonorable discharge and the convictions remained serious consequences.

Result: Guilty of all four Article 120b specifications. Three specifications merged for sentencing. Eighteen months of confinement and a dishonorable discharge, compared with a ten-year floor in the Government’s best plea offer. Issues preserved for appellate review.

---

FAQ

Q: What role did the Reactive Attachment Disorder diagnosis play?
The diagnosis preceded the allegations. The defense used the documented history and expert testimony to explain its theory of the changing accounts and the timing of the disclosure. A diagnosis is not proof of fabrication. The panel heard the defense and still convicted our client.

Q: Why contest the case when the Government offered a plea agreement?
The proposed agreement required at least ten years of confinement. Our client chose to contest the allegations and preserve issues that a guilty plea could have limited. The actual confinement sentence was eighteen months, with a dishonorable discharge. That result depended on this case’s evidence and sentencing presentation.

Q: Did losing the M.R.E. 404(b) motion end the defense?
No. The ruling allowed the panel to hear the texts, deletions, and phone reset. The defense still challenged the allegations at trial and presented the clinical and service evidence at sentencing. The convictions and the sentence must both be stated to understand the result.