Article 83 UCMJ – Fraudulent Enlistment, Appointment, or Separation – Military Defense Lawyers

UCMJ Military Defense Guide by Gonzalez & Waddington

Article 83 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice criminalizes fraudulent enlistment, appointment, or separation. This offense applies when a service member intentionally withholds information, lies, or conceals facts to enter military service, receive an appointment, or secure an early release or discharge they are not entitled to.

Fraudulent enlistment cases often involve medical history omissions, concealed criminal records, undisclosed drug use, falsified documents, identity issues, immigration misunderstandings, or mistakes made by recruiters. In many cases, the accused had no intent to deceive—the misinformation stemmed from confusion, poor guidance, recruiter pressure, or administrative error.

Florida’s large recruiting market—including Jacksonville, Orlando, Miami, Tampa, and Pensacola—sees higher-than-average Article 83 allegations. Recruiters often fail to properly explain medical waivers, background checks, or disclosure requirements, and later attempt to blame the enlistee for omissions that were never intentionally hidden.

Gonzalez & Waddington is internationally recognized for defending service members accused of fraudulent enlistment and separation fraud. We expose recruiter misconduct, administrative failures, misunderstanding of regulations, and lack of criminal intent—often leading to dismissal, retention, or administrative resolution instead of criminal conviction.

➤ Speak With an Article 83 Military Defense Lawyer

What Article 83 Criminalizes

Under Article 83, a service member commits fraud when they:

• Knowingly misrepresent, conceal, or fail to disclose a material fact
• During enlistment, induction, appointment, or separation
• AND the fact would have influenced the decision to enlist, appoint, or separate the individual
• AND the conduct was wrongful and intentional

Material facts include:

• Criminal history
• Prior drug use
• Financial or moral issues
• Mental health conditions
• Medical diagnoses affecting qualification
• Civil court actions or arrests
• Papers or documents required for enlistment

However, the military must prove that the accused the information was disqualifying and intentionally hid it.

Examples of Article 83 Violations

• Failing to report past drug use
• Concealing a criminal conviction or pending charges
• Using someone else’s address or documents
• Hiding a disqualifying medical condition
• Altering medical documents
• Using fraudulent immigration documentation
• Falsely reporting dependency status to influence separation
• Lying during a separation request for hardship or dependency

But many cases involve recruiter error, confusion, or honest misunderstanding—not deception.

Military Must Prove Five Elements

To convict someone of fraudulent enlistment or separation, prosecutors must prove:

1. The Accused Applied for Enlistment, Appointment, or Separation

The application process must have been in motion.

2. The Accused Knowingly Misrepresented or Concealed a Material Fact

Not accidental, not forgotten, not misunderstood—intentional concealment.

3. The Fact Was Material

The information must have been disqualifying or required a waiver.

4. The Accused’s Conduct Was Wrongful

Meaning willfully deceitful—not accidental or induced by recruiter pressure.

5. The Accused Was Actually Enlisted, Appointed, or Separated

The fraudulent information must have contributed to the decision.

Why Article 83 Cases Are Often Weak

Fraudulent enlistment cases frequently collapse because:

• The recruiter advised the applicant incorrectly
• The recruiter told them “don’t worry about that”
• The accused did not know the information was disqualifying
• Medical information was misunderstood or misdiagnosed
• Records were incomplete or incorrect
• The accused believed the issue had been resolved
• The government cannot prove intent
• The alleged omission was minor or immaterial
• Waivers would have been granted anyway

In many cases, the error lies with the recruiter—not the service member.

Why Fraudulent Enlistment Allegations Are Common in Florida

Florida produces large numbers of Article 83 accusations due to:

• High enlistment volume (large recruiting hubs)
• Recruiter quota pressure leading to oversight
• Cultural and language barriers in Miami, Orlando, Tampa
• Foreign-born applicants with complex documentation
• Youthful enlistees unsure of what must be disclosed
• Medical record complexity in Florida’s civilian care system
• Drug use prevalence among applicants

Many Florida enlistment cases involve miscommunication or administrative error—not intentional fraud.

Real-World Florida Article 83 Scenarios

• A Miami applicant fails to report teenage marijuana use because the recruiter said it “doesn’t matter.”
• A Jacksonville enlistee unknowingly omits a sealed juvenile record.
• A Pensacola recruit lists a medical condition incorrectly due to poor translation of a diagnosis.
• A Tampa applicant hides antidepressant use but claims they misunderstood the question.
• An Orlando recruit doesn’t disclose a misdemeanor from years prior they believed was expunged.
• An applicant at Mayport is pressured to “just sign here” by a recruiter trying to meet quotas.
• A Coast Guard applicant misunderstands immigration paperwork instructions.
• A trainee receives a fraudulent separation due to false dependency claims made under stress.

Most of these scenarios involve no criminal intent.

How Article 83 Investigations Work

Investigations typically include:

• Review of enlistment forms (2807-1, 2807-2, etc.)
• Recruiter interviews (often self-protective)
• Medical record comparisons
• Background checks & fingerprint submissions
• Review of separation documents
• Statements from the accused
• Digital forensics (texts with recruiters)

Common Investigation Errors We Expose

• Recruiters lying about what they told the applicant
• MEDPROS and civilian medical records misaligned
• Incomplete or inaccurate records
• Failure to understand applicant’s mental state or literacy
• DOB, SSN, or identity errors not caused by the applicant
• Misapplied waiver policies
• Assuming concealment when the applicant simply forgot

Defense Strategies for Article 83 Fraudulent Enlistment

1. Recruiter Misconduct Defense

Many recruiters explicitly instruct applicants to skip disclosures. We expose these instructions through texts, messages, or witness testimony.

2. No Intent to Deceive

Honest mistakes, confusion, or misunderstanding do not constitute fraud.

3. Waiver Would Have Been Granted Anyway

If a medical or moral waiver was likely, the “omission” is immaterial.

4. Materiality Defense

The alleged deception must have directly affected qualification.

5. Florida-Specific Defense Techniques

• Language and translation issues
• Misdiagnosis by civilian Florida doctors
• Heavy recruiter pressure in large recruiting districts
• Incorrect assumptions about expunged Florida charges

6. Administrative Error Defense

Paperwork lost, misfiled, or entered incorrectly by civilian MEPS staff.

7. Psychological & Cognitive Factors

Youth, stress, ADHD, anxiety, and trauma may impact understanding.

Pro Tips for Anyone Facing Article 83 Charges

• Do NOT speak to investigators or recruiters without counsel.
• Preserve all texts, emails, and messages with recruiters.
• Gather all medical and legal documents.
• Do not attempt to “explain” omissions—it may be misinterpreted.
• Document your enlistment or separation timeline privately.
• Avoid discussing your case with peers or command.
• Hire experienced civilian defense counsel immediately.

➤ Protect Your Career – Get Article 83 Defense Now

Article 83 Fraudulent Enlistment – Frequently Asked Questions