BAH/TAD fraud cases cane be complex for a lot of different reasons. But here is a reminder of one aspect from the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals in, United States v. Peters. This is actually a common mistake by the prosecution when charging fake receipts, and when charging for multiple acts that are performed when submitting a claim.
We are troubled by some of the specifications of false official statements and by the specifications of forgery. We merge two of the specifications of false official statements, set aside the findings on forgery, and affirm the approved sentence.
We take judicial notice that the computer process of electronically submitting a DD Form 1351-2 ends with a final computer entry that is considered an electronic signature. For each claim, Appellant made a single statement when he made the final entry.
The Army Court of Criminal Appeals recently held, in a case with very similar facts, that rental receipts and rental agreements do not have legal efficacy within the meaning of Article 123.
It appears the CGCCA agrees.