Fraudulent enlistment - Need Help

[RONBOUSSOM]

Regarding fraudulent enlistment, Air Force circa 1966: Conscientious Objector Ken from California raised in AF family; father ret.Capt/gen site mgr, Apollo Project, Houston. Becoming CO put Ken in great conflict with his father. He refused to comply w/SSS alternative service work, faced possible reclassification to 1-A and Army induction. "Monitored" by FBI for possible draft evasion during this. Ken left CA for TX w/o informing FBI - relinquished CO status to enlist in Air Force as weather observer and regained father's favor, but said nothing of CA FBI monitoring at enlistment.

After Lackland basic, transferred to Chanute AFB weather school. Remark on Chanute service record last day of training: "Fraudulent enlistment waived, further cognizance of or action to the fraudulent enlistment will not be taken at any time." OSI did background security check during Chanute training and we think discovered open FBI file from CA. Also figured FBI learned from OSI that Ken was enlisted and closed his file. Ken was brought in for questioning by Chanute officers during training about his CO past. Told barracks mates he convinced officers he wanted to volunteer to serve in Vietnam.

He was the only one of his entire student squadron sent there right after training. Not standard policy with uncertified observers. Always 1-2 yrs in states first. Ken knew he was going to Vietnam 1 month before rest of his student squadron had their stateside assignments. Family believes fraudulent enlistment remark was connected to the CA FBI monitoring that he didn't reveal at enlistment. If fraudulent enlistment had NOT been waived, would it have warranted dishonorable discharge and confinement?

Separation from Air Force meant family disfavor/disgrace again and FBI possibly awaiting him. Family feels Ken volunteered for Vietnam to remain in the Air Force. Other comments on service record indicate he was a good, committed observer and they needed men over there at the time. Chanute officers might have been forgiving, but from what I've learned about OSI, they pretty much operated on their own; had no vested in-house interests at Chanute. There was an offense of significance, some price had to be exacted, I would imagine. Perhaps volunteering for Vietnam was the compromise that satisfied all parties.

Ken went to Vietnam and was killed on duty in a weather tower during an artillery attack a year later in 1968. Family's trying to piece together what happened 1965-1966 that changed the course of his life. I've been researching this the past ten months for them and for a book about it. The fraudulent enlistment issue is part of the story. I'm still gathering information, but the above scenario is a compilation of information from records and personal accounts to date.

FBI records would be a major help in corroborating much of this, but in dealing with FOIA, you need all your ducks well lined-up and thoroughly documented before taking your one shot at getting anything back. That's why I'm gathering as much info as I can from as many sources as possible.

My question here on this forum? Does what I've relayed here make any sense from a legal/military point of view? It was a different time and a lot of lines were crossed. Is there a knowledgeable source out there who can give me some specific feedback on this? It would be most greatly appreciated by myself and Ken's family.

Thanks......Ron Boussom - Albuquerque, New Mexico

 

[Shadowbunny]

What do you think is the basis of the fraudulent enlistment? Because the FBI was "monitoring" him? How would that make his enlistment fraudulent?

 

[justalayman]

I simply do not see the big issue here. Ken recanted his claim of CO and was taken into the military.

From what I could find, the weather observer training was a 19 week course (and that included the necessary training to obtain a Federal certification). There is no reason to not dispatch a graduate to some useful post after that time. I have no idea why there would be a 1-2 year period prior to posting to a station. You mention that he desired, specifically, to go to Viet Nam. If that was his desire, why would anybody believe there was anything wrong with his assignment of a station in Viet Nam?


There is a forecasting training that takes longer but unless he entered that part of the training, the time from enlistment to shipping to Viet Nam does not appear to be anything overly quick. Even that was only about 7 (additional) months from what I could find quickly.

as to it being a fraudulent enlistment:

how do you come to that conclusion? If he recanted his claim, there was no fraudulent enlistment. Since he did not attempt to again claim a CO status and alter his enlistment status, it is a moot point even if he was truly a CO. He claimed to not be and was treated as such.

 

[Silverplum]

Regarding fraudulent enlistment, Air Force circa 1966: Conscientious Objector Ken from California raised in AF family; father ret.Capt/gen site mgr, Apollo Project, Houston. Becoming CO put Ken in great conflict with his father. He refused to comply w/SSS alternative service work, faced possible reclassification to 1-A and Army induction. "Monitored" by FBI for possible draft evasion during this. Ken left CA for TX w/o informing FBI - relinquished CO status to enlist in Air Force as weather observer and regained father's favor, but said nothing of CA FBI monitoring at enlistment.

After Lackland basic, transferred to Chanute AFB weather school. Remark on Chanute service record last day of training: "Fraudulent enlistment waived, further cognizance of or action to the fraudulent enlistment will not be taken at any time." OSI did background security check during Chanute training and we think discovered open FBI file from CA. Also figured FBI learned from OSI that Ken was enlisted and closed his file. Ken was brought in for questioning by Chanute officers during training about his CO past. Told barracks mates he convinced officers he wanted to volunteer to serve in Vietnam.

He was the only one of his entire student squadron sent there right after training. Not standard policy with uncertified observers. Always 1-2 yrs in states first. Ken knew he was going to Vietnam 1 month before rest of his student squadron had their stateside assignments. Family believes fraudulent enlistment remark was connected to the CA FBI monitoring that he didn't reveal at enlistment. If fraudulent enlistment had NOT been waived, would it have warranted dishonorable discharge and confinement?

Separation from Air Force meant family disfavor/disgrace again and FBI possibly awaiting him. Family feels Ken volunteered for Vietnam to remain in the Air Force. Other comments on service record indicate he was a good, committed observer and they needed men over there at the time. Chanute officers might have been forgiving, but from what I've learned about OSI, they pretty much operated on their own; had no vested in-house interests at Chanute. There was an offense of significance, some price had to be exacted, I would imagine. Perhaps volunteering for Vietnam was the compromise that satisfied all parties.

Ken went to Vietnam and was killed on duty in a weather tower during an artillery attack a year later in 1968. Family's trying to piece together what happened 1965-1966 that changed the course of his life. I've been researching this the past ten months for them and for a book about it. The fraudulent enlistment issue is part of the story. I'm still gathering information, but the above scenario is a compilation of information from records and personal accounts to date.

FBI records would be a major help in corroborating much of this, but in dealing with FOIA, you need all your ducks well lined-up and thoroughly documented before taking your one shot at getting anything back. That's why I'm gathering as much info as I can from as many sources as possible.

My question here on this forum? Does what I've relayed here make any sense from a legal/military point of view? It was a different time and a lot of lines were crossed. Is there a knowledgeable source out there who can give me some specific feedback on this? It would be most greatly appreciated by myself and Ken's family.

Thanks......Ron Boussom - Albuquerque, New Mexico

No, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

 

[umkemesic]

A DD can only be given at a Courts-Martial. If he did get a DD then he was court-martialed. If he appealed the record/opinion would be in the CMA (Court of Military Appeals, now the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces) published opinion, or even if review was denied it would still be in there.

Doesn't look like fraudelant enlistment, but the 60's were crazy.

 

[LillianX]

A DD can only be given at a Courts-Martial. If he did get a DD then he was court-martialed. If he appealed the record/opinion would be in the CMA (Court of Military Appeals, now the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces) published opinion, or even if review was denied it would still be in there.

Doesn't look like fraudelant enlistment, but the 60's were crazy.

There's no such thing as "A" courts-martial. Martial is postpositive. Courts-martial is the plural of court-martial. This is the second time I've seen you use it like this. For someone who claims to be an "expert" in military law, you sure don't know the terminology.

 

[umkemesic]

Lillian, OK, you just got my attention for about one month. I'm tired of you stalking me and nit-picking grammar. Lex talionis for you sweetie.

Sweetie, the term "Courts-Martial" is used inter-changeably. (i.e. Manual for Courts-Martial.). Especially when talking about the trial and appellate process.

If you type in "a courts martial" in google, you will see Military law firms use the term "courts-martial", in fact, i copied and pasted some results.

Therefore, the opposite is true: We can tell the fakes from individuals who don't use "courts-martial".

Nah, just joking. In actuality we don't care. Next you will be arguing whether we should hyphenate courts-martial, or capitalize the first letter.

This is reductio ad absurdum, what I really want to know is what I did to make you hate me so much. Are you mad because I am a man?

--------------------------

Courts-Martial Appeals Attorney | Military Lawyer | Court-Martial ...
www.militarydefenselawfirm.com/.*****Courts-Martial-Appeals.aspx
Talk to a military attorney about your right to a courts-martial appeal. ... After a verdict has been reached in a Courts-Martial, a service member has the legal right ...


Courts-Martial :: Criminal Defense Columbus GA :: Day | Crowley ...
www.daycrowley.com/plaintext/.*****courtsmartialcriminaldefense.aspx
If you are a Soldier, Seaman, Airman, or Marine charged with sexual assault or a war crime, then you need a courts-martial attorney to represent you ...


Courts-Martial Lawyer | Courts-Martial Attorney | Military Defense ...
Courts-Martial Lawyer | Courts-Martial Attorney | Military Defense Lawyer
A courts-martial is the legal process the military uses to prosecute criminal cases. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), there are three types of ...


Courts-Martial Appeals | Corpus Christi Divorce Lawyer | Criminal ...
www.gouldlawfirm.com/Military.*****Courts-Martial-Appeals.aspx
The consequences of a Courts-Martial conviction may be extremely severe. Additionally, filing an appeal can be complex and time-consuming, and the outcome ...

 

[umkemesic]

Lillian,


Why don't you email those high-flying Military Lawyers (their 6-30 years exp.) and tell them to stop using "a courts-martial" on their website, I am sure they would bow to your three years at Boston. I'll give them a call tomorrow. Heck, we should type up a memorandum of law and distribute that to TJAG - let them know the last 60 years we've been using incorrect grammar.

Wait, on second thought, let's hold off on bothering the retired and active-duty JAGs

I would fax you my certificates, you seem to doubt my skill, but I think I will hold off on that one, I don't give out my name to anyone.

"court-martial, Courts-Martial, or court martial" is fine and acceptable.

 

[Proserpina]

Lillian,


Why don't you email those high-flying Military Lawyers (their 6-30 years exp.) and tell them to stop using "a courts-martial" on their website, I am sure they would bow to your three years at Boston. I'll give them a call tomorrow. Heck, we should type up a memorandum of law and distribute that to TJAG - let them know the last 60 years we've been using incorrect grammar.

Wait, on second thought, let's hold off on bothering the retired and active-duty JAGs

I would fax you my certificates, you seem to doubt my skill, but I think I will hold off on that one, I don't give out my name to anyone.

"court-martial, Courts-Martial, or court martial" is fine and acceptable.

You do that.

 

[FlyingRon]

In some of the cases you cited it was used correct.

Also there should not be a hyphen there when used as a noun.

The phrase "a courts-martial attorney" is correct. The article "a" applies to attorney. "Courts-Martial" is an adjective, properly hyphen to refer to the fact the lawyer handles courts martial.

The phrases "a verdict has been reached in a courts martial" is incorrect. This should use the singular form of court martial.

The phrase "A courts-martial is.." is also wrong, should use the singular noun, no s, no hyphen.

Googling shyster internet courts-martial attorney is NOT proof of acceptability. Show me an military cite (UCMJ) or decision from any courts martial that regularly uses your incorrect English and I'll buy it.

Don't get me started on Insepctors General (it's an inspector who is general, not a general who is an inspector).

 

[Free_Advice]

chanute has been closed for years .. and this activity is during the 60's? I don't know whats the point of reviewing this.

The 60's still had that anti-communist air about and the FBI had files on almost everyone from them McCarthy era .. it may be files on his parents that caused some concern.

we have gone almost full circle, with the government collecting data about its citizens at an even greater amount today than they did back then.

90% of the people on a no-fly list have no idea how they got on it.

 

[umkemesic]

In some of the cases you cited it was used correct.

Also there should not be a hyphen there when used as a noun.

The phrase "a courts-martial attorney" is correct. The article "a" applies to attorney. "Courts-Martial" is an adjective, properly hyphen to refer to the fact the lawyer handles courts martial.

The phrases "a verdict has been reached in a courts martial" is incorrect. This should use the singular form of court martial.

The phrase "A courts-martial is.." is also wrong, should use the singular noun, no s, no hyphen.

Googling shyster internet courts-martial attorney is NOT proof of acceptability. Show me an military cite (UCMJ) or decision from any courts martial that regularly uses your incorrect English and I'll buy it.

Don't get me started on Insepctors General (it's an inspector who is general, not a general who is an inspector).

You might have something there......I did a quick search and found United States v. Scott Buber[/U][/I] (CAAF, 2006);

"Buber claims that the Army court abused its discretion in deciding to reassess his sentence rather than order a rehearing because a charge alleging a single, exculpatory false official statement may not have even been referred to a courts-martial much less result in a sentence to a bad-conduct discharge and two years in jail. We find that the Army court’s decision to reassess this sentence was an abuse of discretion."

They are probably using the term "a courts-martial" in the generic M.C.M. sense. There were also a lot of VA and Circuit opinions as well, but I ignored them. At any rate, it is nit-picky.