Bilecki Challenges Fort Sam Houston Theft Case; Charges Dismissed After Article 32

Bilecki Challenges Fort Sam Houston Theft Case; Charges Dismissed After Article 32

July 2025

Joint Base San Antonio – Fort Sam Houston, Texas

Army First Lieutenant – O-2

Allegations: UCMJ Article 121 Larceny

Facts

OSTC preferred two larceny specifications against an Army officer over less than four hundred dollars in clothing taken from the Fort Sam Houston PX. We fought it at the Article 32, and the charges were withdrawn and dismissed.

The government's proof was not thin. PX loss prevention had surveillance from two consecutive days showing her taking clothing into dressing rooms, removing tags, paying for other items, and leaving without paying for the rest. Security Forces tied the transactions to her card, brought her in, advised her of her rights, and got a sworn statement admitting she took items on both dates.

That is usually enough to push a case like this straight through.

It did not here.

Tim Bilecki got involved while the case was moving toward court-martial. We retained Patrick Eller as our investigator, worked the case, and fought it at the Article 32. The immediate commander was already against taking this officer to trial. We used that. Then we pushed the issue directly through our written matters and our argument at the hearing. The hearing officer came out against court-martial as well.

That changed the case.

Separate from the criminal side, she had already resigned from the Army-UK Master of Social Work program in lieu of non-academic relief. That did not decide the UCMJ case, but it was part of the posture by the time the hearing happened.

After the Article 32, the charges were withdrawn and dismissed.

Result: Charges withdrawn and dismissed after Article 32.

---

FAQ

Q: What did Bilecki argue at the preliminary hearing?
The defense presented written matters and argument with the support of its investigative work. The immediate commander opposed taking the officer to trial, and Bilecki made that position part of the disposition argument. The hearing officer also recommended against court-martial. The hearing officer recommended against trial despite the surveillance and admission.

Q: What happened to the charges?
They were withdrawn and dismissed after the hearing. The officer's earlier resignation from the social-work program was a separate personnel event, not the disposition of the criminal charges.