Virginia: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH Commonwealth of Vi Plaintiff ve Docket #: CR15S-2295 Brent Joseph Henry, Defendant Stipulation Of Facts ‘The Commonwealth's evidence would show that between January 4, 2015, and March 23, 2015, the defendant solicited and received benefits from the charity Wags for Warriors Virginia Beach, based on representations made by him and on his behalf] regarding his service in the United States Marine Corps. ‘The charity is run by A 1 M: , who met the defendant in the fall of 2014 when the defendant and his girlfriend Jcame into M, +°s business, asking for help. ‘The charity, Wags for Warriors, assists local veterans who suffer from physical Jand/or psychological injuries as a result of their military service. Applicants need to provide proof of their diagnoses and the connection to military service, as well as show they were honorably discharged. One of the main things the charity does is provide veterans with service dogs who can assist them with daily tasks, provide companions! and rehabilitation, and/or assist the veterans in anticipating and working through crises in mental health. The charity provides the dog and a trainer to train the dog and veteran, or, if the veteran has his own dog, Wags for Warriors will provide a trainer to work with the }veteran and his dog. In this case, the defendant had a dog of his own and the charity set him up with a trainer, paid by the charity, to work with the defendant and his dog to train the dog to be a service animal. The training began on February 7, 2015, and took place| jalmost daily until March 23. The total cost of the training services was $2420.00. In addition to the training, the charity paid $458.43 for a veterinary bill for the defendant's dog. Ordinarily, the charity has an application and approval process, but Mr. M: ‘waived that for the defendant, due to the defendant's representations about his military service and current acute needs. ‘The waiver was conditioned upon the defendant providing the necessary information to complete the application at a later time; however, he never did. The defendant claimed to have been involved in a military helicopter crash Jwhich caused him serious bodily injury, PTSD, and an honorable discharge from the Marines in 2008. He also claimed to have been awarded various medals and lcommendations for his military service. He and his girlfriend advised at that first meeting that he was in need of immediate psychiatric care but was unable to access services due to ja delay at the Veteran's Affairs hospital. Based on these representations, Mr. M:sn sso waived the charity’s normal screening and approval process and gave the defendant money to see a doctor. As the defendant continued his association with Wags for Warriors, he elaborated on his story about his military service and continued to seek! money to pay for doctors’ visits. On January 14, 2015, Mr. M. gave him a charity Jcheck for $120.00 for a co-pay and on January 20, 2015, he gave another check for }$698.25, again intended for the defendant’s medical treatment. He requested and was| promised receipts/documentation to support the checks but they were never provided. The| {defendant continued to represent to Mr. M: that he had been deployed to Iraq seven or Jeight times, that he had been involved in a helicopter crash, and even showed him| [Facebook photos of his unit in Iraq and photos of a military K9 he said was his (he said he ‘was a dog handler/trainer) that had been killed Over time, as Mr. M. continued to be unsuccessful in getting the requested| documentation to support the defendant’s claims regarding his military service and discharge, Mr. M: became increasingly suspicious and began to press for proof. When| asked directly for his DD-214, which documents the basis and terms under which a person| separated from the military, the defendant told Mr. Mi — that he had lost it and was! junable to obtain a copy. When Mr.M__ > obtained a copy of the defendant's DD-214, he| [confronted the defendant with it; the defendant claimed it had been altered and was not jaccurate. The DD-214 showed that the defendant was given a bad-conduct discharge from the Marine Corps in 1998. He was never in combat, received no commendations or medals, was not a K9 handler, and was not involved in a military helicopter crash in 2008, Had the defendant been honest about his service record and the nature and source lof his physical/mental incapacities, Mr. M: would have still tried to assist him, but he }would not have been given the service dog training, nor the extensive funds for medical treatment; the charity provided the assistance it did in reliance on the misrepresentations made by the defendant directly, as well as the ones made on his behalf by his girlfriend Jand the misapprehensions he allowed people to make based on his untrue statements, All events pertaining to this offense occurred in Virginia Beach. Please see the attached documents: Copies of checks and training logs, the defendant’s DD-214, and the Jdefendant’s statement to police. WE AGREE THAT THIS WOULD BE THE COMMONWEALTH’S EVIDENCE. BY. Sara R. Chandler Brent J. Henry Attomey for the Commonwealth Defendant Taite Westendorf Attorney for the Defendant OCA File Number: VABIS-2676