TexasCHLforum.com

A bright spot in the anxiety and confusion of recent days:

A Texas man who embellished his military record to appear as a highly-decorated war hero has been sentenced to 30 days in federal prison, authorities said.

Paul A. Schroeder, 41, of Shenandoah, was convicted of altering a military or naval discharge certificate, United States Attorney Kenneth Magidson announced Monday. The former director of counseling for the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Foundation of America admitted he altered his military discharge certificate.

United States District Judge David Hittner ordered Schroeder serve 30 days in prison, followed by one year of supervised release. He also ordered Schroeder pay a fine of $3,000.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/05/bo ... z2HhulQqL3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's a disgrace to the Texas flag.

Sorry it happened here.

This guy was as bad a case as I can remember. The penalty seems so low, does not seem to be a deterent...
Though I have to say, the things this guy did would indicate his elevator is not reaching the top floor. He might have done it what ever the penalty was.

Topbuilder wrote:This guy was as bad a case as I can remember. The penalty seems so low, does not seem to be a deterent...

I don't know... For someone that, before this, who was seen as an upright outstanding veteran with a high-profile job.. To be a convicted liar about his military record is probably as much a deterrent as the minimum-security prison sentence and the minimal fine. Yep, you're right - not much of a deterrent at all.

I wonder why he was federally prosecuted. On the application form it says, "STATEMENT - State law makes falsifying information on this application a third-degree felony" Either way, he got caught and punished.

Back when I was a lawyer at an insurance company, the incredibly gorgeous receptionist was being courted by a handsome, dashing Naval aviator, lots of them around here then when NAS Miramar was still Navy.

He would stop by every now and then to pick her up in his flight suit, a breach of uniform policies forbidding stopping off base in working gear, but sometimes done. Flowers would arrive periodically. I never actually met him but saw him, and something was off kilter somehow, maybe haircut, military bearing, something I couldn't really put my finger on, and it was none of my business, to boot.

In the fullness of time, it developed that he was a complete phoney. The wedding, planned for some distance out, had to be called off. I understand the bride's father and brothers took care of whatever score there was to be settled.

Yup - going off-base in a work uniform was a no-no when I was in the AF.

n5wd wrote: Now, if they sentenced him to police up the barracks areas around some military installation with confinement in the base's brig at night, carrying a blanket that had "blanket party me" stenciled on it...

I like this idea! I'll take him for 30 days and let him be a soldier... and by that, I mean I'd give him a uniform and then work him from 0600-2200 doing all the tasks my soldiers do so that the real soldiers can spend more time training.

he was prosucuted under the Stolen Valor act a federal law that makes falsifying your military record to include things you didn't do or awards you didn't earn a federal crime

JP171 wrote:he was prosucuted under the Stolen Valor act a federal law that makes falsifying your military record to include things you didn't do or awards you didn't earn a federal crime

I thought that the Stolen Valor Act was ruled unconstitutional, so I looked it up on Wikipedia

"On October 17, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider the validity of the law. On June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court found the law unconstitutional in a 6 to 3 decision, with Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito dissenting. In United States v. Alvarez the majority held that the Stolen Valor Act was an unconstitutional abridgment of the freedom of speech under the First Amendment."

I strongly disagree with the ruling.

there was a new law passed last year and signed, it narrowed the old law

JP171 wrote:there was a new law passed last year and signed, it narrowed the old law

Thanks. Good to know. Looks like (Google) it was an amendment to the 2013 Defense Authorization Act signed into law on January 2, 2013. That said, this guy was convicted in 2012. So now I wonder anew, under what law in effect in 2012 was he convicted? I know I'm picking nits, but I'm curious to know.

possibly under fraud laws of the state, it you gain financially from a deception it becomes fraud. lying about your service is very dishonorable and many times when the liar embelishes too much they get caught hanging out, but there are many who don't as the story isn't a big lie, maybe just saying they were in Iraq or something when they werent never get caught, still just as wrong to me