Bilecki Challenges Fraudulent Intent in BAH Case; Airman Receives NJP and Honorable Separation

Bilecki Challenges Fraudulent Intent in BAH Case; Airman Receives NJP and Honorable Separation

February 2024

Kadena Air Base, Okinawa, Japan

Air Force Senior Airman – E-4

Allegations: UCMJ Article 124 Frauds Against the United States

Facts

An Air Force Senior Airman at Kadena Air Base was facing a UCMJ Article 124 Frauds Against the United States investigation for approximately $34,000 in BAH overpayment after he failed to update his marital status with the Air Force following a New York divorce judgment. Maximum exposure on an Article 124 conviction at court-martial: years of confinement, federal felony record, and a punitive discharge. Our client's ETS was four weeks out.

The Government's case was a Security Forces Report of Investigation built on the divorce judgment, BAH dependent-rate continuation across the year following the judgment, and a third-party recording in which our client made admissions about the unfiled paperwork. The investigation had probable cause and the file was on the way to a charge sheet referral.

Our client retained Bilecki at the investigation stage, weeks before the scheduled ETS.

We walked the Convening Authority through what the third-party recording actually said.

The admissions on the recording were admissions of inattention to the BAH paperwork in the months following a New York divorce judgment, not admissions of intentional concealment to keep the dependent rate flowing. The post-divorce administrative chain (the New York judgment finalization timeline, the BAH paperwork that should have been triggered by the marital-status update, and the Air Force admin process that no one in the chain had moved on) supported the negligence reading the defense was offering. The package also put the practical reality in front of the command: with an ETS days out, the Government could pursue recovery of the overpaid allowance even if the misconduct was resolved at NJP.

The Convening Authority dropped the Article 124 fraud and offered NJP on a single Article 92 dereliction of duty specification.

Our client accepted NJP. The Article 124 charge was not preferred. NJP was imposed.

Our client ETS'd on schedule with an Honorable characterization of service.

Result: Article 124 fraud not preferred; matter resolved at NJP on a single Article 92 dereliction; Honorable ETS on schedule.

---

FAQ

Q: What did Bilecki challenge in the fraud allegation?
Tim examined the recording the Government relied on and the sequence of the divorce and allowance paperwork. We argued that the statements supported a failure to attend to a duty, rather than deliberate concealment to obtain money. The command resolved the case on one Article 92 dereliction allegation instead of preferring fraud charges.

Q: Why did the approaching end of service matter?
The Airman’s scheduled separation was weeks away. Bilecki presented both the intent argument and a practical resolution: NJP could address the misconduct while the Government retained its ability to recover the allowance debt. The Airman received NJP and separated on schedule with an Honorable characterization.