Bilecki Challenges Recording Evidence and Permanent Filing; Captain Promoted After Local GOMOR

Bilecki Challenges Recording Evidence and Permanent Filing; Captain Promoted After Local GOMOR

March 2023

Schofield Barracks, Hawaii / Fort Jackson, South Carolina

Army Captain | O-3

Allegations: UCMJ Article 120c Indecent Recording; UCMJ Article 117a Wrongful Distribution of Intimate Visual Images; UCMJ Article 134 Extramarital Sexual Conduct; AR 600-37 General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand

Facts

The Army had two chances to turn this into a career-ending case: first through Article 120c and Article 117a charges, then through a permanent GOMOR. Neither happened.

An Army Signal Captain assigned to Schofield Barracks was in a struggling new marriage. He met a civilian woman online in Hawaii. The relationship later became physical. He was married at the time, and he should not have been in the relationship. That part was not complicated.

The criminal allegation came later. After the relationship ended, the civilian woman reported that he had recorded part of a sexual encounter without her consent and had distributed intimate images of her. She also claimed he had sent sexual photos and videos on a near daily basis through the spring and summer of 2021.

Those allegations carried real exposure. Article 120c indecent recording and Article 117a wrongful distribution are not minor administrative complaints. For an Army officer, charges in that lane can mean General Court-Martial, federal conviction, dismissal from the Army, and sex offender registration consequences if convicted.

Bilecki was retained in October 2021, during the CID investigation phase at Schofield Barracks, before charges were preferred and before the disposition decision had hardened.

The defense focused on the digital proof. CID and the forensic extraction of the Captain's phone did not support the near daily transmission allegation. The complainant did not produce timestamped Snapchat or text records that could be tied to him and that proved the claimed distribution. The one private photo that existed had been taken with his consent and had not been distributed to a third party.

The Article 120c and Article 117a investigation closed without charges. No charges were preferred at Schofield Barracks.

More than a year later, the case came back in a different form. By then, the Captain was in the Army's civilian education program at Cornell University, routed through the Student Detachment at Fort Jackson. Fort Jackson opened an AR 15-6 investigation on the residual Article 134 theory: extramarital sexual conduct.

The criminal allegations did not come back as charges. What remained was the affair.

The AR 15-6 Investigating Officer interviewed the complainant and two of her friends. The friends were summarized by memorandum for record, but they did not sign sworn statements. The investigation found that the Captain had violated Article 134 based on the extramarital relationship. The Commanding General then issued a GOMOR and initially intended to file it permanently in the Army Military Human Resource Record.

That filing decision was the fight. Permanent filing threatened his pending promotion to Major, his selection for Resident Intermediate Level Education and the civilian graduate education the Army had selected him to complete.

Bilecki submitted the GOMOR rebuttal to the Commanding General at Fort Jackson in February 2023.

The rebuttal did not defend the affair. The Captain accepted responsibility for the extramarital relationship and for the damage it caused. The defense attacked what the packet could not support and what the AR 15-6 skipped.

First, the rebuttal addressed Article 134. Extramarital sexual conduct is not simply "married plus sex with someone else." The Manual for Courts-Martial requires analysis of whether the conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline or service discrediting. That analysis includes factors such as rank, military status of the other person, duty impact, misuse of government time or resources, notoriety, unit impact, whether the relationship was ongoing or remote, and the state of the marriage.

The AR 15-6 did not analyze those factors. The rebuttal did.

The relationship was private. The civilian woman had no military status. The Captain's spouse was a civilian. The relationship was not known in the unit before the report. There was no evidence that it damaged unit morale, teamwork, discipline, or mission performance. His company performed at a high level during the same period. There was no counseling or order to desist. The relationship had ended roughly eighteen months before the GOMOR. He and his wife had reconciled, were attending faith based marital counseling, and had welcomed their first child.

Second, the rebuttal attacked the imported photo and video allegation. The GOMOR stated that he had sent multiple videos and pictures, including nudity and sexual videos, on a nearly daily basis. The forensic evidence did not support that allegation. His phone did not contain the claimed transmissions. The complainant did not provide the records necessary to prove them. The private photo that did exist had not been distributed.

Third, the rebuttal put the officer's actual Army record in front of the Commanding General. He had been rated Most Qualified in every OER. Senior raters described him as the best S6 they had worked with, the number one Captain they senior rated, the number one staff officer they had senior rated, and the number one Signal Company Commander observed in more than two decades of service. After 41 months of key developmental time as a Battalion S6, Squadron S6, and Signal Company Commander, the Army selected him for civilian graduate education at Cornell's SC Johnson College of Business.

At Cornell, he earned a 3.9 GPA and Dean's List recognition in the MBA program. He had been selected for promotion to Major and selected for Resident ILE. The GOMOR filing decision would decide whether all of that continued.

The Commanding General locally filed the GOMOR.

The reprimand did not enter the AMHRR. The flag lifted. The Major promotion ran. The Resident ILE selection held. The Cornell MBA tour continued.

Result: No Article 120c or Article 117a charges. GOMOR locally filed. No AMHRR filing. Major promotion preserved. No Article 120c conviction. No SORNA.

---

FAQ

Q: What did Bilecki challenge after the recording investigation ended?
The later reprimand repeated photo and video allegations the digital record did not support. Tim addressed those claims separately from the affair our client admitted. The rebuttal also analyzed the military impact of the relationship, its private nature, the time that had passed and the reconciliation with his wife.

Q: What did local filing mean for this officer?
The reprimand stayed out of his AMHRR. His flag was lifted, his promotion to Major proceeded, and his Resident ILE selection and Cornell MBA tour continued. Those are the actual personnel results in this case, rather than a promise about what local filing achieves in every case.