Bilecki Presents Kleptomania Evidence; Navy Lieutenant Commander Receives Forty-Five Days and No Dismissal

Bilecki Presents Kleptomania Evidence; Navy Lieutenant Commander Receives Forty-Five Days and No Dismissal

April 2025

NSA Naples, Italy

Navy Lieutenant Commander – O-4

Allegations: UCMJ Article 121 Larceny (3 specifications); UCMJ Article 92 Violation of a General Regulation (2 specifications)

Facts

A Navy Lieutenant Commander assigned to a watch billet at NSA Naples was facing a referred general court-martial on three Article 121 larceny specifications across two duty stations and two Article 92 specifications for violation of general regulations governing weapon and firearm possession in on-base housing. Maximum exposure on a referred Article 121 larceny conviction at general court-martial: years of confinement, Dismissal, federal felony record, federal firearm prohibition, and the financial liability that runs alongside any contested larceny conviction.

The Government had a hard case.

Loss prevention at the Navy Exchange at NSA Naples had documented a pattern of theft by our client across multiple shopping trips over an approximately ten-month window. On the day of the apprehension, our client had been stopped attempting to leave the Exchange with an Apple MacBook Air and an Apple Pencil. A search of his on-base housing the same day had recovered a dangerous weapon and personal firearms our client did not have written authorization to possess in the housing. The Government had loss prevention witnesses, the documentary record, the security footage, and the apprehension. There was a fifth specification on a single item taken from the Navy Exchange at NSA San Diego in 2021 to round out the picture.

Our client retained Bilecki at the NCIS investigation stage.

Tim Bilecki arranged an independent forensic psychiatry evaluation to investigate why an officer with the means to buy these items had repeatedly stolen them. The evaluation produced a kleptomania diagnosis. Kleptomania is a recognized impulse-control disorder in the diagnostic literature; it is clinically distinct from a moral failing or a calculated theft scheme. Once the diagnosis was on the record, the question for the Government changed. The case was no longer about whether to put a Lieutenant Commander out of the Navy with a Dismissal and a federal firearm prohibition. It was about how to resolve a documented mental health condition through the court-martial system without ending a twenty-year Navy career and a wartime intelligence officer's commission.

The Government took Dismissal off the table.

The Plea Agreement secured plea of guilty to the two NSA Naples Article 121 specifications, the prior San Diego specification withdrawn and dismissed without prejudice, both Article 92 firearms specifications withdrawn and dismissed without prejudice, no Dismissal under any circumstances, restitution-equivalent forfeitures totaling the value of the items at issue, and trial by Military Judge alone.

The Military Judge accepted the plea. Sentence: 45 days confinement on each of the two larceny specifications, run concurrently for a total of 45 days. Forfeiture of $2,500 per month for five months, totaling $12,500. The Military Judge recommended that two months of the forfeiture be suspended. No Dismissal. No fine. Our client reported to the military confinement facility at Sembach, Germany. The Convening Authority took no action on findings or sentence; Entry of Judgment was signed in late May 2025.

Result: Three specifications withdrawn and dismissed. Plea to two larceny specifications. 45 days concurrent confinement and forfeiture of $2,500 per month for five months. No dismissal.

---

FAQ

Q: Why did Bilecki arrange an independent psychiatric evaluation?
The theft evidence was strong. Bilecki investigated why an officer with the means to buy the property repeatedly stole it. The evaluation produced a kleptomania diagnosis, which the defense used in negotiating the resolution and addressing punishment. It did not erase the thefts or produce an acquittal.

Q: What punishment remained after the agreement?
Our client pleaded guilty to two larceny specifications and received forty-five days of concurrent confinement and $2,500 in monthly forfeitures for five months. There was no dismissal. The judge recommended suspending two months of forfeitures, but the convening authority took no action on the sentence. The result therefore retains the adjudged forfeitures and both convictions.