Bilecki Separates Admitted Comment from Disputed Allegations; Marine Receives 6105 and Continues Serving

Bilecki Separates Admitted Comment from Disputed Allegations; Marine Receives 6105 and Continues Serving

February 2023

MacDill Air Force Base, Florida / Darwin, Australia

Marine Gunnery Sergeant | E-7

Allegations: UCMJ Article 134 Sexual Harassment; UCMJ Article 89 Disrespect Toward a Superior Commissioned Officer; UCMJ Article 92 Failure to Obey the Prohibited Activities and Conduct Order; Fraternization

Facts

A Marine Gunnery Sergeant deployed with VMM-268 as part of Marine Rotational Force-Darwin made one inappropriate off-duty comment to a female lieutenant at a bar in Darwin. The command then built the 6105 packet around broader allegations of sexual harassment, disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer, violation of the Prohibited Activities and Conduct Order, and fraternization.

The admitted comment happened at Shenanigans in Darwin. He was off duty, drinking with other Marines, and went to the bar to get another drink. A female lieutenant was at the bar. He asked what she was drinking and whether he could pay for it. She declined. After he got his drink, he told her, "Ma'am, I just wanted to let you know that I think you are very pretty." He then grabbed his drink and sat back down. The interaction ended there.

That comment should not have been made. He was a Gunnery Sergeant. She was a lieutenant. Even off duty, even in a bar, and even in a deployment liberty environment, a staff noncommissioned officer does not need to comment on a junior officer's appearance. The rebuttal did not pretend otherwise.

But the 6105 packet did not stop with that comment. The command also alleged that he made disrespectful public sexual comments about his commanding officer, repeatedly made unwelcome comments to the female lieutenant, made sexual comments about junior Marines, and fraternized with a female captain at a dance club.

Bilecki was retained in September 2022, during the command investigation phase and before the 6105 was finalized. That timing mattered. The defense was able to help shape the 6105 rebuttal before the command locked the case into the broader version of events. The rebuttal admitted the one off-duty comment, took responsibility for the lapse in judgment, documented the corrective action he had taken, and then denied the unsupported allegations the command had layered around it.

He denied making derogatory sexual comments about his commanding officer. He described his commanding officer as an outstanding leader who took care of Marines and their families, and he stated that during his outbound interview he told her that he admired her leadership and appreciated what she had done for his family. According to the rebuttal, the commanding officer told him he was the best Gunnery Sergeant she had seen in 27 years of service.

He also denied telling the female lieutenant she was "cute" or that they should "hang out." He admitted the one comment at the bar and denied the expanded version of repeated or escalating comments. He denied making public sexual comments about junior Marines. As to the separate female captain allegation, he did not pretend to remember what he did not remember. He stated that after a night of drinking, a Master Sergeant later told him that a duty officer had intervened between him and a female captain who were reportedly kissing on a dance floor. He told the Master Sergeant he did not recall that happening, but he took the counseling seriously and stopped drinking after that.

That was also part of the rebuttal. Since leaving the deployment, he had cut out alcohol completely, gone back to school, gone back to church, refocused on his family, and accepted that he had put himself in a situation that could damage his name, his reputation, his career, and his family.

The rebuttal separated the comment he admitted from the additional conduct he disputed or could not personally recall. It gave the command his response to each allegation and documented the corrective steps he had taken. The broader allegations of sexual harassment, disrespect toward the commanding officer, PAC Order violations, and fraternization did not move into administrative separation or further adverse action.

The rebuttal also put his Marine Corps career in front of the command. He had served more than fifteen years, completed three combat deployments to the Middle East, completed seven additional non-combat deployments, and held the highest level of qualifications in his MOS. The command was not looking at a junior Marine with no history and no record. It was looking at a career Gunnery Sergeant whose service record had to be weighed against the conduct actually supported by the 6105 packet.

The command imposed the 6105. But the broader allegations did not go further. No administrative separation was initiated. No further adverse action was taken. The Gunnery Sergeant continued in service.

Result: 6105 imposed. No administrative separation. No further adverse action. SNCO continued in service.

---

FAQ

Q: What is a 6105 counseling in the Marine Corps?
A 6105 is a formal adverse counseling entry under Marine Corps separation and administrative processing rules. It documents alleged misconduct or deficiency, gives the Marine notice of the issue, and warns that further misconduct may support administrative separation. A 6105 can become important later because it creates a paper trail the command may use if additional allegations arise. In this case, the 6105 was imposed, but no administrative separation was initiated.

Q: Why did the rebuttal admit one comment but deny the broader allegations?
Because that was the cleanest way to keep the case tied to what actually happened. The Gunnery Sergeant admitted the off-duty bar comment to the female lieutenant and accepted that it was out of place. He denied the expanded allegations that he made derogatory sexual comments about his commanding officer, repeatedly pursued the lieutenant, made public sexual comments about junior Marines, or that the command should treat the night as a broader harassment or fraternization pattern.

Q: Why did early defense involvement matter?
Because Bilecki was retained during the command investigation phase, before the 6105 was finalized. That gave the defense a chance to help craft the rebuttal, admit the one comment, deny the unsupported allegations, document corrective action, and keep the broader allegations from becoming administrative separation or further adverse action.