Air Force Lieutenant Colonel’s Fraud Case: Thirty Days, Fine and Reprimand; Retirement Approved

Air Force Lieutenant Colonel’s Fraud Case: Thirty Days, Fine and Reprimand; Retirement Approved

May 2025

Hurlburt Field, Florida

Air Force Lieutenant Colonel – O-5

Allegations: UCMJ Article 124 Frauds Against the United States

Facts

An Air Force Lieutenant Colonel and former squadron commander was facing a referred general court-martial on a charge sheet that originally carried twenty-nine specifications of Article 124 frauds against the United States, spanning false lodging receipts and false travel claims for TDY trips across roughly sixteen months and a dozen and a half installations. Maximum exposure on a referred Article 124 frauds conviction at general court-martial across the original twenty-nine specifications: decades of confinement, Dismissal, federal felony record, end of commission, and total restitution liability for the entire claim spread.

The Government's case was that across that window of TDY travel our client had submitted Defense Travel System lodging receipts and travel claims at amounts higher than what had actually been incurred at each location. The Government had built a paper case across the charged travel: the lodging receipt our client had submitted, the travel claim our client had submitted, and the inferred actual cost at each location.

Our client retained Bilecki at the Air Force investigation stage.

Across every charged TDY trip, we pulled the actual room receipts our client had paid out of his own pocket where the Government claimed false lodging, the photographs our client had taken inside the rooms at the Sand Dollar Inn and the Space Coast Inn and every other charged property, the front-desk records, and the corresponding actual lodging invoices. Trip by trip, we built a case-in-chief evidence package that put the Government's twenty-nine specifications next to the documentary record on what had actually been paid and where.

We submitted two formal Offers of Alternative Disposition tied to that documentary build. The first offer went in early in the year before the case was preferred. The second went in late in the year before referral. The two offers, paired with the spec-by-spec record, gave the convening authority a path off about half the charge sheet.

At the December 2024 referral to general court-martial, the convening authority withdrew and dismissed approximately half of the original twenty-nine specifications without prejudice and restructured the charge sheet to fifteen specifications.

The Plea Agreement on the back end paired with that restructure. The agreement explicitly prohibited the Military Judge from adjudging a Dismissal. The punitive discharge ceiling was off the table entirely. The agreement contemplated a fine equal to the value of the false claims at issue.

At the general court-martial, thirteen of the fifteen remaining specifications resulted in convictions. Specification 4 and Specification 15 were withdrawn and dismissed with prejudice; Specification 15 had initially been included in the guilty pleas. The Military Judge adjudged 30 days confinement on each of the thirteen specifications, all confinement to run concurrently for a total of 30 days, plus a fine of $6,440.61 and a reprimand. The sentence also included forty-five days of contingent confinement if the fine was not paid within seven days of entry of judgment. No Dismissal. No reduction in pay grade. No forfeitures. The Military Judge recommended on the record that 23 days of the 30-day confinement be suspended until our client submitted his retirement application, with a further recommendation that the suspended portion be remitted at retirement.

Our client's retirement was approved.

Result: Charge sheet restructured from 29 to 15 specifications at referral. Convictions on thirteen specifications; the remaining two were withdrawn and dismissed. Thirty days of confinement, a $6,440.61 fine, and a reprimand, with an additional 45 days of confinement contingent on failure to pay the fine within seven days of entry of judgment. No dismissal. Retirement approved.

---

FAQ

Q: What supported Bilecki's alternative-disposition proposals?
The defense compared each alleged false claim with the actual lodging records: receipts, photographs, front-desk records and invoices. Bilecki submitted two formal proposals supported by that work. The original twenty-nine-specification case was reduced to fifteen at referral, and thirteen ultimately resulted in guilty pleas.

Q: Was the fine the same as restitution?
The sentence imposed a $6,440.61 fine, thirty days of concurrent confinement and a reprimand. Calling the fine restitution would imply a separate debt had been satisfied, which the sentence alone does not establish. No dismissal was imposed, and retirement was approved. The judge's recommendation to suspend part of the confinement was a recommendation, distinct from the adjudged thirty days.