Article 132 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice criminalizes fraud against the United States. It applies when a service member intentionally submits, makes, or uses false claims, statements, or records to obtain money, property, allowances, or benefits from the U.S. government. In modern practice, Article 132 is most often used in cases involving:

• BAH and OHA fraud
• travel fraud (DTS-related discrepancies)
• TDY/PCS entitlement manipulation
• fraudulent Government Travel Charge Card (GTCC) charges
• fraudulent claims against medical or government programs
• misuse of government credit cards
• forged signatures, fake leases, and false documentation

These cases can begin with nothing more than a DFAS discrepancy, a confused clerk, or an unintentional administrative mistake—yet escalate instantly into felony accusations. Article 132 carries severe punishments, and commands often charge it alongside Article 121 (larceny), Article 107 (false official statement), or Article 92 (failure to obey a regulation).

For service members stationed in or tied to Florida, Article 132 cases frequently arise from:

• financial audits connected to high-cost housing areas (Miami, Tampa, Orlando, Jacksonville)
• PCS moves with complicated dependent status issues
• TDY travel through Florida airports with unclear reimbursements
• dual-military households with conflicting entitlements
• GTCC misuse triggered by rapid travel itineraries or delayed orders
• DFAS errors misinterpreted as criminal deception

Article 132 is dangerous because it allows prosecutors to claim “fraud” even when the issue results from clerical incompetence, system failures, confusing guidance, or good-faith mistakes. This guide breaks down the law, modern enforcement patterns, and the defense strategies that Gonzalez & Waddington use to defeat these cases.

Article 132 – Full Legal Breakdown

To convict someone under Article 132, the government must prove that the accused:

• knowingly
• and intentionally
• submitted a false or fraudulent claim, statement, voucher, or document
• with the purpose of obtaining money, property, or benefit from the United States

The government must show intent. Mistakes are not fraud. Misunderstanding regulations is not fraud. Incorrect guidance from finance is not fraud.

What Counts as a “Claim”?

A “claim” under Article 132 includes:

• travel vouchers
• DTS submissions
• BAH/OHA certifications
• dependent status declarations
• PCS reimbursement documents
• medical reimbursement requests
• damage or loss claims
• contract-related funding requests

Key Element: Intent to Defraud

Intent is the heart of Article 132. Prosecutors must show:

• the accused knew the information was false
• the accused intended to deceive the government
• the accused expected a financial or material gain

Most Article 132 cases fail because the government cannot prove intent.

What Does NOT Constitute Fraud?

• admin mistakes
• DFAS delays
• incorrect advice from finance personnel
• incomplete DTS submissions
• lost receipts replaced with estimates
• complex custody arrangements
• incorrect dependency status updates that were not processed on time
• mistaken GTCC charges made in good faith

Forms of Fraud Under Article 132

Article 132 includes several distinct types of fraud:

1. Presenting False Claims

This includes:

• submitting a false travel voucher
• requesting reimbursement for nonexistent expenses
• submitting fake receipts
• claiming unauthorized mileage

2. Making or Using False Documents

Examples include:

• altered leases
• false dependent documentation
• forged signatures
• fake hotel receipts

3. Intentional Deception Related to Entitlements

This includes knowingly:

• claiming dependents who do not qualify
• misrepresenting marital or custody status
• claiming dual BAH improperly
• submitting housing at a different location than where one resides

4. Contract or Procurement Fraud

Less common but still charged, including:

• overbilling the government
• misrepresenting government property use
• fraudulent statements in contracting processes

Maximum Punishments Under Article 132

Penalties can be severe and may include:

• up to 5 years confinement (or more when combined with related offenses)
• total forfeitures
• reduction to E-1
• bad-conduct discharge or dishonorable discharge

Even without court-martial, an Article 132 accusation can lead to:

• administrative separation
• loss of security clearance
• career-ending evaluations
• recoupment of alleged debts

How Prosecutors Build Article 132 Cases

Prosecutors rely heavily on:

• DFAS and finance audits
• DTS logs
• emails with S-1, admin, and finance
• witness statements from clerks
• bank statements, receipts, and transaction history
• digital forensics (metadata, timestamps, file edits)
• statements by the accused (especially if unrepresented)

They then try to interpret errors as intentional fraud.

Common Government Misconceptions in Article 132 Cases

• “If the claim was wrong, it must be fraud.”
  False. Mistakes are common—fraud is intentional.
• “You signed it, so you must have meant it.”
  False. Military pay forms are complex and confusing.
• “DFAS says it’s wrong, so it must be fraud.”
  False. DFAS makes constant clerical mistakes.
• “You should have caught the error.”
  Negligence is not fraud. Intent is required.
• “Correcting the mistake later doesn’t matter.”
  False. Prompt correction strongly disproves intent to deceive.

Florida-Specific Problems in Article 132 Cases

Florida generates high numbers of Article 132 investigations due to:

• high-cost and complex housing markets (leading to BAH confusion)
• frequent temporary duty and commuting patterns
• DFAS errors triggered by Florida zip code misclassification
• rapid PCS turnover at Florida installations
• GTCC misuse caused by delayed orders or travel cancellations

These factors lead to honest mistakes that commands aggressively misinterpret as deliberate fraud.

Real World Article 132 Military Scenarios

Article 132 fraud cases often begin as administrative discrepancies, DTS confusion, BAH miscalculations, or command misinterpretations of complex finance rules. Only later do investigators convert these issues into felony-level accusations. The following scenarios reflect common patterns across all branches and especially at Florida installations.

• A soldier submits a DTS voucher with an incorrect mileage estimate because the GPS recalculated during travel. DFAS flags it, and CID charges attempted fraud.
• A Marine in Florida rents a home with an online lease provided by a civilian landlord. Months later, the lease is discovered to be invalid. The Marine is charged with submitting a false document, despite having no knowledge of the landlord’s misconduct.
• An Air Force member uses a GTCC for a hotel deposit while waiting for orders to be approved. OSI interprets this as knowing misuse.
• A sailor’s spouse moves home during marital separation. The sailor updates DEERS, but finance takes months to adjust BAH. NCIS accuses the sailor of deliberately collecting overpayment.
• A soldier accidentally submits duplicate receipts in DTS due to auto-upload from the mobile app. The system pays twice before correcting. CID charges false claims.
• An enlisted Marine receives conflicting BAH guidance from his admin shop and DFAS. He follows the wrong guidance. NCIS still charges fraud.
• During PCS to Florida, a service member lives temporarily with family. Their BAH remains at the previous duty station rate. Finance later calls this “fraud.”
• A Coast Guardsman submits a rental agreement signed electronically by the spouse. CGIS later claims the signature was “forged” because it was e-signed.
• An Airman submits a dependent travel claim while separated from their spouse. The paperwork was filed before separation. OSI charges fraud.
• A soldier files reimbursement for meals during TDY. One receipt is missing, so they use the standard rate. Finance audits the claim later and CID alleges false reimbursement.
• A service member receives civilian medical treatment while on leave. The TRICARE claim is mishandled by the provider. Investigation wrongly targets the service member for fraud.
• A Marine’s GTCC is automatically charged late fees due to delayed payment processing. NCIS claims misuse.
• An Army NCO uploads a temporary rental lease while searching for permanent housing. CID claims the lease was “fake” because it lacked standard formatting.
• An enlisted member mistakenly claims BAH for the wrong Florida county because the housing clerk provided the wrong ZIP code.
• A sailor submits a damage claim for property lost during a government move. The moving company denies liability, but the command accuses the sailor of exaggerating the value.
• A service member attempts to fix a DTS error multiple times. System glitches continue producing duplicate claims. OSI misinterprets this as deliberate manipulation.
• A Florida police report mistakenly lists the wrong address on a rental verification call. The command later claims fraud.
• A dual-military couple both receive BAH briefly due to a DFAS mistake. CID charges both with fraud.
• During a hurricane evacuation, a soldier submits receipts under chaotic conditions. Some receipts are handwritten. The command treats this as a fraudulent claim.
• A Marine’s spouse signs a lease extension on his behalf while he is deployed. NCIS alleges forgery and false claim submission.

These scenarios show how Article 132 cases often rely on assumptions, clerical errors, incomplete records, or misunderstandings rather than genuine criminal intent.

How Article 132 Investigations Are Conducted

Fraud investigations are dominated by paperwork, emails, DTS logs, DFAS audits, and administrative testimony. Investigators often lack financial expertise and rely on clerks to interpret complex entitlements. This leads to incorrect conclusions and unjust charges.

1. DFAS & Finance Audit Initiation

Most Article 132 cases begin with:

• random finance audits
• overpayment notifications
• DTS auto-flags
• BAH/OHA recertification reviews
• GTCC delinquency reports
• PCS travel discrepancies

These audits often misinterpret errors as intentional deception.

2. Incorrect Assumptions by Finance Clerks

Finance personnel frequently:

• misapply regulations
• give contradictory advice
• input data incorrectly
• fail to update dependency status
• misinterpret receipts or contracts

Investigators treat these administrative failures as criminal intent.

3. The “Gotcha” DTS Approach

DTS is outdated and error-prone. Investigators exploit:

• auto-generated duplicate claims
• system glitches
• confusing user prompts
• auto-populated data
• incorrectly mapped receipts

These errors often have nothing to do with fraud.

4. Interviews with S-1, Travel Clerks, and Housing Offices

Investigators frequently interview:

• finance clerks
• travel section personnel
• housing office staff
• BAH certifying officials

However, these individuals are not legal or financial experts. Their opinions often become “evidence” even when inaccurate.

5. NCIS / CID / OSI / CGIS Investigation Patterns

• CID: relies heavily on finance clerks, often confusing recommendations with facts.
• NCIS: treats every discrepancy as intentional deception and aggressively pursues charges.
• OSI: focuses on metadata, timestamps, and email chains, often misinterpreting context.
• CGIS: tends to rely on external Florida rental/lease verification that is frequently inaccurate.

6. Digital Forensics Misinterpretations

Fraud cases frequently misuse:

• email timestamps
• DTS logs
• file metadata
• digital signatures
• PDF modification history

Investigators often assume that edits or resubmissions signal deception. In reality, they often reflect attempts to fix errors.

7. The “Intent Reconstruction” Method

Investigators examine:

• texts
• emails
• search history
• conversations with clerks

and try to infer criminal intent from benign communications. The defense must show innocent explanations.

8. Florida-Specific Article 132 Pitfalls

Florida installations produce unique fraud patterns due to:

• misleading housing listings
• fake or altered leases in competitive rental markets
• rapid PCS turnover causing paperwork delays
• frequent hurricane evacuations causing chaotic reimbursements
• errors in Florida-specific ZIP codes and BAH tables

Commands often misinterpret these circumstances as deliberate fraud.

How Gonzalez & Waddington Defend Article 132 Fraud Cases

Article 132 cases rise and fall on intent. The government must prove the accused intended to deceive the United States—not simply that a financial error occurred. Most Article 132 cases collapse when the defense exposes administrative failures, system glitches, or inconsistent guidance from finance personnel. Gonzalez & Waddington approach these cases with a comprehensive strategy focused on unraveling the government’s narrative and proving lack of intent.

Step 1 – Destroy the Government’s Theory of Intent

Fraud requires deliberate deception. The defense emphasizes:

• conflicting guidance from S-1, finance, or DFAS
• evidence the accused sought clarification
• efforts to correct errors voluntarily
• lack of concealment or deception
• email threads showing good-faith attempts to comply
• immediate cooperation once an issue was discovered

When intent fails, Article 132 fails.

Step 2 – Reconstruct the Administrative Timeline

Fraud allegations often fall apart once the true timeline is established. The defense reconstructs:

• when the accused submitted paperwork
• when finance processed (or failed to process) changes
• delays caused by DFAS backlogs
• emails showing attempts to update dependency or BAH info
• travel orders that lagged behind real-world events
• system glitches that auto-generated claims

This timeline exposes systemic failures—not criminality.

Step 3 – Attack the Validity of DFAS and Finance Audits

DFAS and finance audits are often riddled with:

• incorrect calculations
• outdated BAH tables
• misinterpreted receipts
• inaccurate DTS flags
• clerical input errors
• incorrect dependency classifications

Cross-examining finance personnel frequently reveals they lack training, misread regulations, or relied on flawed assumptions.

Step 4 – Expose Flaws in DTS and GTCC Systems

DTS is one of the most error-prone systems in the military. The defense highlights:

• auto-populated incorrect values
• duplicate claims generated by system glitches
• receipts attached to wrong dates by the app
• outdated travel regulations
• GTCC delays that mislead investigators

These flaws undermine the government’s intent narrative.

Step 5 – Demonstrate Honest Mistake, Not Criminal Intent

The defense highlights:

• good-faith efforts to follow rules
• corrective actions taken immediately
• lack of financial motive (many errors result in small amounts)
• evidence the accused relied on official guidance
• complexity of military entitlements

Step 6 – Use Expert Testimony

Experts can refute fraud with testimony on:

• DFAS systems and known error patterns
• DTS functionality and glitches
• BAH/OHA/regulation interpretation
• GTCC processing delays
• forensic accounting and entitlement calculations

Step 7 – Attack the Credibility of Investigators

Investigators often jump to conclusions without understanding finance systems. Defense cross-examination exposes:

• their lack of training
• misunderstanding of regulations
• failure to interview key witnesses
• overreliance on finance clerks
• assumptions treated as facts

Step 8 – Introduce Evidence of Official Confusion or Conflicting Instructions

Many Article 132 cases begin with:

• finance clerks giving contradictory answers
• different offices applying rules differently
• emails showing the accused was told the wrong thing
• DFAS representatives making errors

These inconsistencies create direct reasonable doubt.

Step 9 – Florida-Specific Defense Strategies

Florida fraud cases often involve:

• fake or misleading rental leases created by landlords
• rapid PCS turnover creating data entry chaos
• hurricane evacuations leading to messy receipts
• tourist-area rental markets with fluctuating pricing
• BAH ZIP-code errors common in high-density regions

These complicating factors often mislead investigators but give the defense powerful counterarguments.

Pro Tips for Service Members Facing Article 132 Allegations

These tips help protect your rights, preserve evidence, and improve your defensive posture immediately.

• Do not talk to investigators. Your words can be twisted into evidence of intent.
• Save every email, screenshot, message, and document showing your understanding of entitlements.
• Preserve DTS drafts, system messages, and auto-generated logs.
• Do not delete receipts—photograph everything.
• Request written guidance from finance offices whenever possible.
• Document all conversations with housing or admin personnel.
• Immediately capture proof of system glitches—take screenshots.
• Do not sign statements written by investigators.
• Identify all witnesses who can verify your good-faith intentions.
• Save every version of leases, contracts, or rental documents.
• Keep all GTCC statements, even if charges were later reversed.
• Do not rely on verbal guidance from finance—verify in writing.
• If married/separated, preserve custody agreements and timelines.
• Keep a timeline of every financial action you took.
• Do not discuss your case with coworkers—rumors get distorted.
• Preserve bodycam, if Florida police were involved.
• Print out MyPay/DFAS transcripts showing attempts to fix issues.
• Act quickly—fraud cases escalate fast.
• Stay calm, organized, and communicative with your defense lawyer.
• Never repay money without legal advice—it can be misinterpreted as guilt or consciousness of wrongdoing.

Call to Action for Article 132 Fraud Allegations

Article 132 fraud accusations are career-killers. They threaten confinement, dishonorable discharge, financial ruin, and permanent reputational harm. Most fraud cases are not criminal—they arise from systemic failures, confusing entitlements, clerical mistakes, and poorly trained finance personnel. You need defense counsel who understands DFAS, DTS, GTCC, BAH, dependency law, and the investigative flaws that destroy the government’s case.

Gonzalez & Waddington have defended service members worldwide in some of the most complex and high-profile financial fraud cases in the military. Whether the allegation involves BAH, GTCC, DTS, PCS, OHA, or alleged falsified documents, we know how to unravel the government’s assumptions and expose the truth.

To get immediate help, visit our Florida military defense hub at
https://ucmjdefense.com/florida-military-defense-lawyers/.

For more UCMJ article guides, return to
UCMJ Articles 77–134 Guide.