Bilecki Challenges Chief’s Instruction and Presents Corpsman’s Service; Article 91 Dismissed at Mast

Bilecki Challenges Chief’s Instruction and Presents Corpsman’s Service; Article 91 Dismissed at Mast

February 2024

Okinawa, Japan

Navy Hospital Corpsman First Class – E-6

Allegations: UCMJ Article 91 Insubordinate Conduct toward an NCO; UCMJ Article 92 Failure to Obey a Lawful General Regulation

Facts

A Navy Hospital Corpsman First Class with eighteen years of service in Okinawa was facing a Captain's Mast on Article 91 insubordination and Article 92 PAC violations over comments and conduct during FMF warfare-pin study sessions he had been running for junior Sailors at a branch dental clinic.

The government's case was a command investigation. Two junior Hospital Corpsmen reported sexually charged comments across May to October 2023. The IO found that our client had counseled a junior Sailor alone after a Chief Petty Officer's contrary directive, and that he had continued contact with one of the alleged victims after a senior Chief had ordered him to stop. The IO recommended Captain's Mast.

The Article 91 specification did not survive contact with what the order actually was.

The defense argued that the Chief Petty Officer’s particular instruction was guidance rather than a lawful order. The IO's own opinion paragraph characterized it that way. We fought the Article 91 specification as not legally cognizable and pleaded not guilty.

On the Article 92 PAC violations, our client pleaded guilty by acknowledgment to the documented conduct: the body-count question, the fireman-carry insistence over refusal, and the commentary at morning huddles. We framed that conduct as misguided humor and intrusive leadership, not the sexual harassment characterization the alleged victims gave it. The most serious specific allegations were directly denied.

Tim Bilecki also put the conduct in the context of eighteen years of service. The mitigation included two Marine Expeditionary Unit deployments, work as an infantry line corpsman in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and potassium iodide distribution after the Fukushima disaster. His record also included service as a Leading Petty Officer aboard an amphibious ship, meritorious promotion, four Navy Achievement Medals, and warfare qualifications. That history gave the commander a reason to retain him while addressing the conduct at Captain’s Mast.

The Commanding Officer found Article 92 only at Captain's Mast. The Article 91 specification was dismissed.

No court martial referral. No administrative separation. No further adverse action.

Result: Captain's Mast on Article 92 only. Article 91 dismissed. No court martial. No administrative separation.

---

FAQ

Q: How did Bilecki challenge the Article 91 allegation?
Tim relied on the investigator’s own description of the Chief’s instruction as guidance and disputed whether this particular instruction supported the charged offense. An order does not have to be written or formally worded to be enforceable. The challenge concerned the actual instruction and circumstances, and the commander dismissed the Article 91 specification.

Q: What did the commander decide on the remaining conduct?
The commander acted on the Article 92 violations at Captain’s Mast. Bilecki had acknowledged the documented conduct while contesting the more serious allegations and presenting eighteen years of service. The Sailor remained in service without a court-martial or administrative separation. The disposition still included an adverse NJP finding.