- an applicant commits the offense of fraudulent enlistment when he or she provides false information about matters that would constitute either an absolute bar to enlistment or would constitute a bar to enlistment without a waiver from the service branch
- the elements of fraudulent enlistment or appointment, Article 83, UCMJ, are: (a) that the accused was enlisted or appointed in an armed force; (b) that the accused knowingly misrepresented or deliberately concealed a certain material fact or facts regarding qualifications of the accused for enlistment or appointment; (c) that the accused’s enlistment or appointment was obtained or procured by that knowingly false representation or deliberate concealment; and (d) that under this enlistment or appointment, that accused received pay or allowances or both
- the plain language of Article 83 states that an accused must make a knowingly false representation or deliberate concealment as to his qualifications; based on this language, the false representation need not concern a matter that would absolutely bar him from the service; such a view would be contrary to the plain language of the statute; an accused violates Article 83 by providing false information about a matter that would preclude him from entry without the service waiving the disqualification
- by deliberately concealing his inpatient psychiatric treatment from a recruiter when he enlisted in the Marine Corps, appellant satisfied the elements of fraudulent enlistment under Article 83 even though his misrepresentation concerned a matter that could have been waived by the service and was not an absolute bar to enlistment
- Article 83 applies to a misrepresentation about any disqualifying factors for enlistment, whether established by statute or service regulation; it is not necessary that the applicant know that the truth would bar his enlistment, whether absolutely or absent a waiver; neither is it necessary to know what the ultimate result of the waiver process would have been; it is sufficient that the applicant knows that his answers to questions regarding his qualifications were untruthful by commission or omission
CAAF Opinion Digest · III.A.7 · Crimes Pre-2019 offenses
Article 83 - Fraudulent Enlistment, Appointment, or Separation
Offenses committed before 1 January 2019 (pre-2016 amendment) — opinions from the 1999 through 2020 Terms of Court.
2 digested opinions, 2008–2011 Terms
2011 (September Term)
2008 (Transition Term)
- the fraudulent enlistment statute, Article 83, UCMJ, and the MCM provide that a misrepresentation needs to be knowing, and the concealment deliberate; but there is no requirement within either the text of the statute, or the elements set forth in the MCM that the accused actually know anything other than that his answers to questions regarding his qualifications were untruthful by commission or omission; the question whether a fact is regarding qualifications for enlistment and material is analyzed from the perspective of the service making the decision on the enlistment, not from the perspective of the untruthful applicant
- not every fact regarding a qualification for enlistment may be material; the President’s addition of the adjective “material” to the second element of the fraudulent enlistment offense in the MCM – that the accused knowingly misrepresented or deliberately concealed a certain material fact or facts regarding his qualifications for enlistment or appointment - limits the scope of actionable untruths regarding qualifications for enlistment; in determining whether a statement is material to qualifications for enlistment, a court looks at what the misrepresentation concealed and what qualities the service sought to assess in determining fitness for duty; the threshold is low, as a material statement is one that need only have a tendency to influence the decision-making body to which it is addressed
- no authority supports the argument that to be guilty of fraudulent enlistment, an accused must know that the facts he misrepresented were material to his enlistment at the time he made them, because that makes criminal liability turn on whether the untruthful applicant to the armed forces knows that the truth might preclude his enlistment; it would be irrational to require that an applicant fully understand the consequences of a truthful statement because it would mean prospective enlistees would need to possess thorough knowledge of the service’s enlistment standards and policies prior to applying for and entering active duty
- it is undisputed that appellant’s providence inquiry established that he was enlisted in the armed forces, received pay and allowances, knowingly misrepresented the extent of his preservice drug use, and that such prior drug use was relevant to qualification for enlistment in the Coast Guard -- i.e., material; appellant’s providence inquiry established both every element of an Article 83, UCMJ, offense and the facts alleged in the specification; any prevarication during the providence inquiry regarding the timing of Appellant’s knowledge of the materiality of his misrepresentations did not raise a substantial basis in law and fact for questioning his guilty plea to a violation of Article 83, UCMJ
- appellant’s guilty plea to fraudulent enlistment was provident even though the military judge failed to establish appellant’s knowledge that the facts he misrepresented were material to his enlistment at the time he made them; that knowledge was not necessary for his guilty plea to fraudulent enlistment to be provident
Source and status
This is a verbatim mirror of the Opinion Digest and opinions tables published by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The headnotes are the court staff’s summaries of the opinions, reproduced as published; they are not the opinions themselves and not this site’s commentary. Nothing here is edited on this site.
Last updated by the court: Oct 13, 2026 · mirrored Oct 29, 2026 · digest page IIIA7 · Always confirm a holding against the opinion itself (linked from each case name).