No Jail After Stealing $91,000
U.S. v. Army O-3 – Fort Buchanan, PR / Fort Rucker, AL
Allegations: BAH & OHA fraud, Larceny of Government property over $91,000, False official statement, Conspiracy
Maximum Punishment: 65 years in prison, Dismissal
Result: Three charges were dismissed during the trial: not guilty of conspiracy, guilty of stealing OHA and BAH, and false official statement.
Sentence: NO JAIL TIME. $20,000 fine and a dismissal.
Discharge: Dismissal
Location / Branch / Rank: Fort Buchanan, PR – Fort Rucker, AL / Army / O-3
Case Overview
This case involved an Army Reserve officer — an O-3 — who was mobilized to Puerto Rico and subsequently accused of stealing more than $91,000 in housing allowances from the United States government. The allowances at issue were Overseas Housing Allowance (OHA) and Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH), two of the most scrutinized pay entitlements in the military justice system.
The government’s theory was straightforward: the officer submitted fraudulent housing claims, collected money he was not legally entitled to, made false official statements to cover his tracks, and conspired with subordinates to carry out the scheme. Prosecutors also alleged that he taught an E-7 coworker how to defraud the government — a serious charge that, if proven, would have significantly increased his exposure at sentencing.
On top of those allegations, the government claimed the officer improperly collected BAH for an ex-wife after the couple had already divorced. Taken together, the charge sheet exposed him to more than 65 years in confinement, a dismissal (the officer equivalent of a dishonorable discharge), and total forfeiture of all pay and allowances.
What Was at Stake
For an Army officer, a court-martial conviction of this nature carries consequences that extend well beyond prison time. A dismissal ends a military career permanently, eliminates retirement eligibility, and can follow a person into civilian employment, professional licensing, and security clearance proceedings for the rest of their life.
At the outset of this case, the defense team — led by Michael Waddington and CPT Brennan Breeland — recognized that complete acquittal on all charges was unlikely given the volume of government evidence. Their goal was clear: fight every charge aggressively, limit the number of convictions, and keep the client out of prison.
The Government’s Evidence
The prosecution built a layered case against the officer. The evidence included:
- Testimony from an E-7 who claimed the officer personally confessed to stealing OHA and then showed the E-7 how to do the same
- Expert witnesses from military finance and housing who explained how a bogus lease was allegedly used to generate fraudulent housing payments
- Multiple witnesses from Puerto Rico — including the landlord — who testified against the officer
- Three separate witnesses who stated that the officer admitted to receiving OHA he was not entitled to
- Incriminating emails attributed to the officer
The jury panel was composed entirely of officers — Colonels and Lieutenant Colonels, many of them senior Army Aviators. An all-officer panel of that seniority understands financial entitlements, accountability, and the obligations of commissioned officers. This was not a sympathetic audience, and the defense team knew it.
How the Defense Fought Back
Rather than conceding ground to the prosecution, Waddington and CPT Breeland attacked each witness directly and methodically. The defense cross-examined government witnesses to expose inconsistencies, biases, and motivations to lie or exaggerate. Impeaching a witness does not mean simply challenging their credibility in general — it means confronting them with specific prior statements, documented contradictions, or evidence of self-interest.
The E-7’s testimony was particularly important. He claimed the officer confessed and taught him how to commit fraud — powerful evidence if believed. The defense challenged that account head-on. Despite the E-7’s direct testimony, the jury ultimately found the officer not guilty of teaching the E-7 how to defraud the government. That outcome, by itself, represented a significant win in the middle of a difficult trial.
What the Jury Decided
During trial, three charges were dismissed entirely. The jury acquitted the officer of conspiracy. He was convicted of stealing OHA, stealing BAH, and making a false official statement.
Those convictions still left him facing up to 35 years in prison at sentencing — a life-altering outcome by any measure. The defense prepared a comprehensive sentencing case arguing that no jail time was appropriate. The panel agreed.
The Sentence
Result: No Jail Time. $20,000 Fine and a Dismissal.
The officer was sentenced to a $20,000 fine and a dismissal from the Army. He did not serve a single day in confinement. While a dismissal is a serious consequence — it ends military service and forfeits retirement benefits — avoiding years in a military prison represented an outcome that the facts of the case, on their surface, did not seem to promise.
This result was not the product of luck. It came from a defense team that prepared thoroughly, challenged the government at every turn, successfully defeated several charges at trial, and then presented a compelling case at sentencing. The ability to separate a conviction from a prison sentence is one of the most important skills a military defense attorney can bring to a court-martial.
What Service Members Should Know About Housing Allowance Fraud Cases
BAH and OHA fraud cases are prosecuted aggressively by military investigators and trial counsel. The Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps all have Criminal Investigation organizations dedicated to tracking financial crimes, and housing allowance fraud is a priority area. If you are under investigation or have received a target letter related to BAH or OHA, you should speak with a qualified military defense attorney before making any statements to investigators.
Even if you believe the government’s evidence against you is strong, an experienced attorney may be able to get charges dismissed, win acquittals on key specifications, or present a sentencing case that keeps you out of confinement. This case is an example of what aggressive, prepared defense work can accomplish even when the facts are difficult.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between BAH fraud and OHA fraud?
Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) is a monthly payment provided to service members stationed in the continental United States to help cover the cost of off-post housing. Overseas Housing Allowance (OHA) serves a similar purpose for service members stationed outside the continental United States. Both allowances are based on dependency status, pay grade, and duty location. Fraud occurs when a service member submits false information to collect allowances they are not entitled to — for example, claiming a higher dependency status, submitting a false lease, or continuing to collect an allowance after the qualifying circumstances have changed. Both types of fraud can be charged as larceny under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and can result in substantial prison time.
Can a service member go to prison for housing allowance fraud even if some charges are dismissed?
Yes. Even if a court-martial panel acquits a service member on some charges or a military judge dismisses certain specifications, the service member can still be sentenced to confinement based on the charges on which they are convicted. In this case, the officer was convicted of stealing OHA, stealing BAH, and making a false official statement — and still faced up to 35 years in prison at sentencing. The result of no jail time was not automatic; it required a well-prepared defense sentencing case that persuaded the panel to impose a fine rather than confinement.
Should a service member under investigation for BAH or OHA fraud speak with investigators?
No — not before speaking with a military defense attorney. Under Article 31 of the UCMJ, service members have the right to remain silent and the right to consult with counsel before any questioning. Statements made to Criminal Investigation Division (CID) agents, Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) agents, or any other military investigators can be used against you at court-martial. Even statements that seem innocent or explanatory can be twisted, taken out of context, or used to establish elements of an offense. The safest course is to invoke your rights immediately and contact an experienced military defense attorney before saying anything.