Bilecki Reconstructs Threats and Parking-Lot Fight; Navy NJP Punishment Suspended on Appeal
August 2023
Pearl Harbor, Hawaii
USS HOPPER
Navy Petty Officer Third Class | E-4
Allegations: UCMJ Article 128 Assault Consummated by Battery
Facts
A Navy Petty Officer Third Class assigned to USS HOPPER at Pearl Harbor was threatened in a shipboard group chat, confronted later that night in the Arizona Hall parking lot, shoved repeatedly, and forced to defend himself. The command still sent him to Captain's Mast for Article 128 assault consummated by battery.
The incident started in a shipboard group chat. What began as junior Sailor trash talk turned into something else when another Sailor threatened to shoot our client and talked about sending "10 hot ones" to his face. Other Sailors in the chat told him to stand down.
Later that night, our client went to the Arizona Hall parking lot to retrieve his ballcap from a shipmate's car. The same Sailor showed up with his girlfriend, got out of his truck, closed distance, got in our client's face, and shoved him. Our client did not swing first. He put his hands up, told the other Sailor to get back, and told the girlfriend to call the duty staff at Arizona Hall.
She did not call. She stood there and watched.
The other Sailor kept pressing. He shoved our client again, then again. When he closed distance in a striking posture, our client punched him. The fight went to the ground. After the fight ended, the other Sailor picked up our client's wallet and tried to leave with it. The wallet had his CAC, Social Security card, credit cards, and cash. Our client went after him, restrained him, demanded the wallet back, and let him go once the wallet was returned.
The other Sailor then kicked and destroyed our client's camera, valued at approximately $2,500. Our client did not chase him down after that. He did not restart the fight. He called police and notified his chain of command.
The command processed the case through the Disciplinary Review Board, Executive Officer's Inquiry, and Captain's Mast. The Commanding Officer awarded non-judicial punishment for Article 128 assault consummated by battery.
Bilecki was retained for the NJP appeal after Captain's Mast. The appeal put the actual sequence back in front of the appellate authority: the group chat threats, the parking lot confrontation, the first shove, the repeated shoves, the girlfriend standing there after being told to call duty staff, the wallet, the destroyed camera, the responding military police report, and our client's decision to call police and notify his chain of command.
Tim used the group-chat threats and the responding military police report to show why the encounter was a defensive response to an escalating confrontation. The same record showed that his client asked for help and reported the incident instead of pursuing the other Sailor after it ended.
That was the record the command should have dealt with from the beginning.
The appellate authority suspended the NJP sentence imposed at Captain's Mast. Our client continued in service.
Result: Article 128 NJP sentence suspended on appeal. Sailor continued in service.
FAQ
Q: What did Bilecki put before the appeal authority?
Tim reconstructed the entire encounter, starting with the threats in the group chat. The appeal connected those threats to the repeated shoves, our client’s request that someone call for help, the wallet incident and the destroyed camera. We used the military police report and his decision to report the incident to support the self-defense argument.
Q: Did the appeal erase the NJP finding?
The punishment was suspended on appeal. The finding remained, and the Sailor continued serving.
Prior results do not predict future outcomes.