A Victory for Justice: Defending a Ghanaian Soldier in United States v. SSG Godfred “Fred” Boateng

In United States v. SSG Fred Boateng, our client—a naturalized U.S. citizen serving in the U.S. Army—faced serious allegations that threatened his career and future as a husband and father. SSG Boateng was charged with stealing $125,000 in Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) entitlements from the U.S. Army by presenting fraudulent claims and making a false official statement relating to what the government alleged was BAH Fraud by knowingly listing his wife as living with his uncle, Sarpong “Sar” Asare, at an address in the Bronx when she resided in Washington State.

The investigation began on September 7, 2022, when a prosecutor in Kaiserslautern alerted the Grafenwoehr CID office after discovering that SSG Boateng’s wife was living in Washington State while receiving BAH for the Bronx. This revelation came during an unrelated BAH Fraud investigation in which SSG Boateng and his wife were interviewed as witnesses. Notably, his wife ultimately refused to testify in that case, further raising suspicions.

The government’s primary witness, a CID agent from Grafenwoehr, testified extensively about the alleged BAH Fraud. She stated that SSG Boateng never moved his wife to the Bronx and was not entitled to the higher BAH rate associated with that location. To support this claim, she pointed to several key pieces of evidence:

• A Penske truck rental receipt submitted by SSG Boateng as part of a DITY (Do-It-Yourself) move voucher showed only 60 miles on the odometer when it was returned the day after it was rented. The agent testified that this short mileage proved the truck was not driven from Washington to the Bronx, as claimed.
• A scale weight ticket submitted with the DITY voucher was allegedly fabricated. The agent testified that the ticket was not a legitimate receipt and had been falsified to support the fraudulent claim of the BAH Fraud.
• A review of Tricare’s medical record appointments revealed that Ms. Beduwa “Betty” Forson, SSG Boateng’s wife, received all her medical care in Washington and none in New York, further undermining the assertion that she lived in the Bronx.
• The CID agent also testified about an interview with SSG Boateng, during which he stated that Betty went “back and forth” between Washington and New York after he moved to Germany. The government argued that this statement and its admission of renting the Penske truck in the Bronx rather than Washington demonstrated an attempt to cover up the BAH Fraud.

Additional evidence came from CID agents at Joint Base Lewis-McChord (JBLM), who visited Ms. Forson’s home in Olympia, Washington. They reported finding evidence suggesting she lived there, including a baby highchair, and neighbors confirmed seeing her regularly at the residence while stating they had never observed a moving van at the property.

The government also introduced testimony from a Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) in New York who visited the Bronx address listed on SSG Boateng’s DA 5960 “BAH Start Form.” The agent testified that attempts to speak with the occupant were unsuccessful but that both the building superintendent and property manager confirmed that someone else had lived there for over 11 years—someone unrelated to SSG Boateng or his wife, Betty.

To solidify their case, the government called a finance policy director from Germany who reviewed three vouchers submitted by SSG Boateng: his travel voucher, Ms. Forson’s travel voucher, and the DITY move voucher. The director testified that all three vouchers were fraudulent because they falsely claimed a move to the Bronx. He calculated the total loss to the government as approximately $125,000 as the result of the BAH Fraud.

The government also highlighted inconsistencies in documentary evidence submitted by SSG Boateng:

• The Penske truck rental receipt showed it was returned after one day in Washington rather than being used for a one-way move to New York as claimed on his vouchers.
• The scale weight ticket was deemed fabricated by its issuing company’s owner.
• The DA 5960 form listed his wife as living in the Bronx despite other records showing her residence in Washington.
• Tricare records confirmed no medical appointments for his wife occurred in New York during the relevant period.
• Video recorded statement from SSG Boateng’s CID interview about renting the truck in New York and his wife traveling between states—statements used by prosecutors to argue intent to deceive.

The government asserted that SSG Boateng knowingly stole $125,000 in Army funds, thereby engaging in BAH Fraud, by submitting false claims and making a false official statement regarding his wife’s residence on his DA 5960 form. They argued that every piece of evidence—from falsified vouchers to fabricated receipts—demonstrated a calculated scheme to defraud the Army while stationed overseas.

In United States v. SSG Boateng, the defense presented a thorough and compelling case that shed light on the unique circumstances surrounding the allegations against him. Far from being a calculated attempt to commit BAH Fraud against the Army, the evidence revealed a series of miscommunications, administrative errors, and personal hardships that painted a far more nuanced picture of SSG Boateng’s actions.

The defense began by establishing the context of SSG Boateng’s Permanent Change of Station (PCS) orders in the summer of 2020. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, there was no in-person levy briefing at Joint Base Lewis-McChord (JBLM), forcing SSG Boateng to complete the process online. We demonstrated that finance regulations explicitly allow soldiers moving overseas unaccompanied to relocate their families to any stateside location. In this case, SSG Boateng intended to move his pregnant wife, Ms. Forson, from Tacoma, Washington, to the Bronx, New York, where she would live with his uncle, Mr. Sarpong “Sar” Asare. The Bronx address was not only his uncle’s residence but also SSG Boateng’s home of record—an address he had used for reenlistment documents and continued to receive mail.

When completing the levy documents, we provided evidence that SSG Boateng listed his wife’s future address as the Bronx because he genuinely believed she would move there. His PCS orders reflected this information, and his leave form corroborated his intention to conduct a DITY (Do-It-Yourself) move to the Bronx. On July 27, 2020, he rented a Penske truck for a one-way trip to New York. However, on that same day, his wife, Betty, experienced complications in her pregnancy, including pain and bleeding. He immediately took her to the hospital, where she was treated and released with follow-up appointments scheduled.

Given this medical scare, SSG Boateng decided against completing the DITY move and instead hired a local moving company he found on Facebook Marketplace. The company agreed to pack and transport their belongings to the Bronx for cash payment. Before the movers arrived on July 28, 2020, he returned the Penske truck to the rental office after hours, leaving the keys in a drop box.

We acknowledged that neither SSG Boateng nor his wife, Ms. Forson, ultimately moved to the Bronx in July or August 2020. However, we demonstrated that he proceeded with his PCS orders to Germany in early August 2020. After completing his mandatory 16-day COVID quarantine and in-processing at Grafenwoehr Theater, he sought guidance on completing three finance vouchers: one for himself, one for his wife’s travel expenses, and one for the DITY move.

During finance in-processing, two civilian clerks assisted him with completing these vouchers. They informed him that since his leave form listed the Bronx as his wife’s address, all related vouchers had to reflect that location for payment processing. Despite telling them that neither he nor his wife had moved to New York and explaining that he had hired movers instead of driving himself, they directed him to complete the vouchers based on receipts and leave forms already on file. Notably, they annotated these discrepancies with “sticky notes” on the vouchers for further review but assured him it was necessary to process them.

When SSG Boateng returned to Washington on leave in December 2020, he and his wife decided she would remain in Washington due to her ongoing medical care and established relationships with her doctors there. Upon returning to Germany in January 2021, he attempted to update his BAH records to reflect this change. Still, he was told by finance personnel that because his orders listed her address as New York, he could not make any changes without first amending those orders through JBLM’s orders section.

During paternity leave in February 2021, SSG Boateng visited JBLM’s orders section but was informed that since more than 30 days had passed since his PCS move, only his gaining unit in Germany could amend his orders. Despite repeated attempts—seven documented efforts over two years—to update his BAH records and amend his orders through military and civilian finance offices in Germany and during deployments in Hungary, he was consistently told it could not be done without proper documentation from JBLM or higher command approval.

Regarding his CID interview, we elicited testimony from the investigating agent highlighting procedural flaws during questioning. The interview was described as “confrontational,” with accusatory statements rather than open-ended exploratory questions aimed at understanding discrepancies in documentation. We emphasized that during this high-pressure interview, SSG Boateng repeatedly complained of feeling dizzy and unwell—symptoms consistent with syncope and side effects from two antidepressants he had recently been prescribed. Despite these complaints, CID agents failed to provide adequate breaks or medical attention beyond offering water.

Additionally, we pointed out language barriers that may have contributed to misunderstandings during questioning. English is SSG Boateng’s third language; under stress or confusion—particularly when interacting with an agent who spoke with a British accent—he sometimes struggled with comprehension.

Ultimately, our defense highlighted systemic failures within military administrative processes that left soldiers like SSG Boateng vulnerable to accusations of BAH Fraud despite their “good faith” efforts to comply with complex regulations. His repeated attempts to correct errors in BAH records were met with bureaucratic roadblocks at every turn—a reality compounded by personal hardships, including his wife’s medical issues and immigration challenges preventing her from leaving Washington.

This case underscores how easily intent can be misconstrued when administrative systems fail service members navigating unique personal circumstances. At its core, our defense demonstrated that while mistakes may have been made during this process due to miscommunication or misunderstanding directives from finance clerks, there was no deliberate intent by SSG Boateng to commit BAH Fraud against the Army or falsify documents for personal gain. Instead, this case reflected broader systemic issues within military pay systems requiring urgent reform to prevent similar injustices against other service members striving to do right by their families while serving their country abroad and facing accusations of BAH Fraud.

In United States v. SSG Boateng, the cross-examination of the CID case agent revealed significant shortcomings in the government’s investigation into alleged BAH Fraud, undermining its credibility and raising serious questions about the thoroughness and impartiality of its case. The defense painstakingly demonstrated that the investigation was not conducted with an open mind or a commitment to uncovering all relevant facts but rather with a singular focus on proving SSG Boateng’s guilt. This approach left critical exculpatory evidence unexplored relating to the allegations of BAH Fraud.

The CID agent, who had prior experience as a financial crimes investigator, admitted during her direct testimony that BAH Fraud cases are “document-heavy” and that “the entire case could change with a single document.” This acknowledgment set the stage for a pointed cross-examination to expose investigative gaps and failures to pursue evidence that could have exonerated SSG Boateng from these allegations of BAH Fraud. From the outset, we established that the purpose of a CID investigation is to conduct an unbiased inquiry, seeking incriminating evidence and facts that may clear the accused of the alleged BAH Fraud. Under questioning, the agent was forced to concede that she had failed to request or review several key documents central to understanding SSG Boateng’s actions and intent.

The defense highlighted numerous omissions in the investigation of this alleged BAH Fraud, including the agent’s failure to obtain levy briefing materials from JBLM, forms submitted by SSG Boateng during his PCS process, in-processing briefings from Grafenwoehr, and documents demonstrating his longstanding connection to Mr. Asare’s Bronx address—his home of record and mailing address for years. The agent also neglected to examine subsequent DA 5960s or pay inquiries submitted by SSG Boateng after his initial in-processing, which could have corroborated his repeated attempts to correct his BAH records and disprove the allegations of BAH Fraud. Even more troubling was her failure to consult relevant finance regulations or policies that might have clarified procedural ambiguities surrounding BAH entitlements and whether there was, in fact, BAH Fraud.

Beyond documentary evidence, the agent admitted to not seeking consent for potentially exculpatory materials such as SSG Boateng’s cell phone, personal computer, or private emails. She also failed to examine government-issued devices or email evidence that required no consent and could have provided critical insights into his communications with finance personnel or chain of command regarding his BAH status and the existence of BAH Fraud.

Perhaps most damning was her failure to interview key witnesses whose testimony could have shed light on SSG Boateng’s intentions and actions. These included his wife, Ms. Betty Forson, neighbors at both the Bronx and Tacoma addresses, out-processing personnel at JBLM, Mr. Sar Asare in the Bronx, medical providers for both SSG Boateng and his wife, Betty, in-processing personnel at Grafenwoehr, and even the finance clerks who directly assisted him in completing his vouchers. Additionally, no effort was made to consult financial experts who could have contextualized discrepancies in the vouchers or explained how administrative errors might occur during PCS transitions, which are common in BAH Fraud cases.

On re-cross examination, I further exposed inconsistencies in the agent’s testimony regarding canvass interviews conducted by JBLM CID agents with neighbors near SSG Boateng’s Tacoma residence. The agent initially testified that neighbors were explicitly asked whether they saw a moving truck on July 27, 2020—when SSG Boateng rented a Penske truck for what he intended to be a DITY move to the Bronx. However, under sustained questioning, she admitted that this assertion was incorrect and that no specific date was mentioned during those interviews. This revelation cast doubt on her knowledge of the case and her credibility as a witness.

What made this discrepancy particularly egregious was the fact—known to both CID and prosecutors—that SSG Boateng’s wife, Betty, had moved from the apartment in Tacoma to a house in Olympia months later, in March 2021. The failure to account for this timeline demonstrated investigative negligence and suggested a possible attempt to mislead the court by conflating unrelated events. This point became a cornerstone of our closing argument, where we underscored how such oversights—or deliberate obfuscations—eroded trust in the government’s case against SSG Boateng for alleged BAH Fraud.

The CID agent’s cross-examination exposed a pattern of investigative failures and selective fact-finding that undermined the government’s narrative of deliberate BAH Fraud. By highlighting these shortcomings, we shifted focus from allegations of intentional wrongdoing by SSG Boateng to systemic flaws within the investigative process. This critical turning point reinforced our argument that this case was not about criminal intent, but administrative confusion compounded by an incomplete and biased investigation. In doing so, we upheld our client’s rights and broader principles of fairness and justice within military proceedings.

The cross-examination of the CID Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) from New York became an enlightening moment in exposing the investigative shortcomings that plagued the government’s case against SSG Boateng for alleged BAH Fraud. Unlike other witnesses, the SSA stood out for his credibility, professionalism, and refusal to exaggerate his findings or draw unsupported conclusions. His likability and candor made him an ideal witness to highlight the limited scope of his involvement and the broader investigative failures that undermined the case.

The SSA’s role in the investigation stemmed from a Request for Information (RFI) by the Grafenwoehr CID case agent, tasking him with verifying whether SSG Boateng’s wife, Ms. Betty Forson, resided at the Bronx address listed on his BAH forms. The SSA testified that he visited the address twice in October and November of 2021 but could not contact the apartment’s resident. He managed to speak with only one neighbor, who provided no helpful information and relied primarily on conversations with the building superintendent and property manager. The superintendent stated that the apartment’s occupant was named “Sar” and had lived there for 11 years, while the property manager provided a one-page lease agreement confirming Mr. Sarpong “Sar” Asare as the tenant. Crucially, neither SSG Boateng nor his wife appeared on any documentation related to the apartment.

While this testimony seemed damaging on its surface, we used it to underscore how limited and narrowly focused this aspect of the investigation was. The SSA admitted that he was not asked to verify whether SSG Boateng had ever lived at the Bronx address or whether “Sar” was related to him—key questions that could have contextualized SSG Boateng’s connection to the residence. Moreover, he confirmed that he was not tasked with conducting any of the following investigative activities:

• Interviewing personnel at the scale company regarding the allegedly fabricated weight ticket.
• Reviewing CCTV footage from either the Bronx address or the scale company to determine whether a moving truck had been present in late July 2020.
• Interviewing neighbors to ascertain whether “Sar” received furniture deliveries during that timeframe.

These omissions highlighted glaring gaps in what should have been a thorough investigation into the allegations of BAH Fraud. We used these admissions to demonstrate how narrowly tailored—and ultimately incomplete—the government’s case had been from its inception.

The SSA’s testimony also became instrumental in critiquing how CID agents conducted SSG Boateng’s subject interview in Germany. As a seasoned investigator, he testified that interviews should be approached with open-ended exploratory questions to elicit explanations rather than confrontations to prove guilt. He emphasized that presenting SSG Boateng with documents such as vouchers or receipts during his interview would have allowed him to explain apparent discrepancies—an opportunity denied by CID agents who confronted him with presumptions of BAH Fraud.

The SSA further testified about proper procedures when interviewing a subject who is under stress or experiencing medical issues. He noted that investigators should inquire about medications being taken or any medical conditions that might affect cognitive function during questioning. In SSG Boateng’s case, these protocols were ignored despite clear signs of distress: SSG Boateng repeatedly complained of feeling dizzy, hot, and unwell during his interview—a fact corroborated by CID agents themselves—but no breaks were taken, nor was medical personnel summoned to ensure his health and well-being. The SSA unequivocally stated that such oversights were inconsistent with best practices and could compromise the integrity of an investigation and the reliability of statements obtained under such conditions.

Perhaps most significantly, we used this cross-examination to draw a stark contrast between the professionalism displayed by the SSA and the investigative missteps committed by others involved in building the government’s case against SSG Boateng. The SSA acknowledged that an unbiased investigation should consider all incriminating and exculpatory evidence and implied that this standard may not have been met. His testimony reinforced our argument that critical steps were overlooked, key witnesses were not interviewed, and potentially exculpatory evidence was ignored—all of which cast doubt on the thoroughness and fairness of the government’s efforts to prove BAH Fraud.

By leveraging the SSA’s credibility and expertise, we effectively shifted focus away from allegations against SSG Boateng and toward systemic failures within CID’s investigative process. His testimony underscored what was done poorly and what could—and should—have been done differently to ensure a fair and unbiased inquiry into this complex case of alleged BAH Fraud. This cross-examination became essential to our defense strategy, highlighting procedural flaws while reinforcing our client’s right to due process and a fair trial.

The cross-examination of the Chief of Policy for the U.S. Army Germany Finance Center of Excellence revealed a troubling lack of clarity and consistency in the very systems soldiers are expected to navigate when managing their financial entitlements related to BAH Fraud. This testimony became a turning point in demonstrating how systemic ambiguities and inconsistent guidance contributed to the alleged discrepancies in SSG Boateng’s travel vouchers and BAH documentation.

The strategy for this cross-examination was twofold: first, to limit the finance policy chief’s ability to speak authoritatively about the specific facts of the case, and second, to expose gaps in finance procedures that left soldiers like SSG Boateng vulnerable to errors despite their good-faith efforts to comply with the guidance from finance clerks. From the outset, it became clear that the policy chief was evasive and, at times, confused about key aspects of his own department’s processes.

The policy chief admitted that he had not interviewed any of the finance professionals in Grafenwoehr before his testimony and that his involvement in the case was merely reviewing the three travel vouchers submitted by SSG Boateng. He also admitted that he was unaware of the in-processing briefings offered in Grafenwoehr or how the COVID restrictions affected the communication between finance and in-processing soldiers.

A central issue revolved around the policy governing changes to BAH entitlements. The finance policy chief testified that once a dependent’s address is listed on a soldier’s PCS orders, finance cannot change the BAH to reflect a different address unless those orders are formally amended. He emphasized that it was the soldier’s responsibility to provide accurate supporting documents—such as a DA Form 5960 and travel vouchers—and that by signing these forms, soldiers effectively guaranteed their accuracy. However, when pressed further, he admitted that no Army Regulation or Department of Defense (DoD) policy explicitly outlined specific documents required to support starting BAH for a new location. Instead, he stated that this information was governed by an internal DFAS (Defense Finance and Accounting Service) “matrix”—a document unavailable to soldiers or commanders.

This admission was key. When asked how soldiers or commanders could possibly know what documents were required if no publicly available regulation or policy outlined these requirements, the policy chief responded that they would have to “rely on advice from finance professionals.” This response underscored a systemic flaw: soldiers like SSG Boateng are expected to comply with opaque rules while relying entirely on guidance from finance clerks who may themselves fail to follow internal procedures or provide accurate advice.

The policy chief’s testimony also revealed inconsistencies in how finance clerks handle travel vouchers and BAH documentation. While he insisted that clerks are trained to follow internal procedures, he refused to acknowledge that deviations from these procedures could occur or might mislead soldiers in completing their forms. His reluctance to admit this possibility further highlighted the systemic challenges service members face navigating complex financial regulations without access to clear, transparent guidance related to BAH Fraud.

This line of questioning became particularly important when tied back to SSG Boateng’s case. The evidence showed that during his in-processing at Grafenwoehr, civilian finance clerks directed him to complete his vouchers based on information already listed on his PCS orders and leave form—even after he informed them that neither he nor his wife, Betty, had moved to the Bronx as initially planned. The clerks instructed him to submit receipts and documents reflecting the Bronx address because “that’s what your orders say,” despite knowing this did not align with his actual circumstances. By relying on their advice—advice he had every reason to trust as reasonable and authoritative—SSG Boateng unknowingly submitted vouchers later deemed fraudulent by CID investigators, leading to allegations of BAH Fraud.

The policy chief’s testimony reinforced this narrative by confirming that soldiers are expected to rely on finance professionals for guidance but bear full responsibility for any errors in their submissions. This contradiction became a foundation of our defense against the charges of BAH Fraud: how can a soldier like SSG Boateng be held accountable for inaccuracies when he followed instructions provided by trained finance personnel?

In closing arguments, I emphasized this exact point: SSG Boateng acted reasonably by relying on the advice of finance clerks who were supposed to be experts in navigating these complex systems. The lack of publicly available regulations or policies governing BAH documentation left him with no alternative but to trust their guidance trust, which ultimately placed him at risk when systemic failures led to discrepancies in his paperwork, opening him up to allegations of BAH Fraud.

The finance policy chief’s cross-examination exposed flaws in how financial policies are communicated and enforced and the unreasonable burden placed on soldiers like SSG Boateng to navigate a murky and inconsistent system, increasing their vulnerability to accusations of BAH Fraud. This testimony underscored our broader argument: this case was not about deliberate fraud but systemic failures that unfairly ensnared a soldier trying to comply with unclear rules in good faith.

In United States v. SSG Boateng, the defense’s strategy hinged on allowing SSG Boateng to tell his story directly to the members. He explained the circumstances that led to the appearance of fabricated documents and provided clarity on his intentions and actions regarding his BAH Fraud charges. His testimony was central in the case, offering a compelling narrative highlighting systemic failures, miscommunications, and personal challenges rather than deliberate wrongdoing.

SSG Boateng began by explaining the origins of his plan to move his wife, Betty, to New York. He testified that he and his wife intended for her to live with his uncle, Mr. Sar Asare, in the Bronx—a place that had deep personal significance for him. The Bronx was where he lived for two years before enlisting in the Army; it was his official home of record, and it remained an address where he received important mail. However, their plans changed when his wife became ill shortly before the move. After her medical scare, they hired a moving company instead of making the trip themselves, and SSG Boateng proceeded with his PCS to Germany without completing the move to New York.

Upon arriving in Germany and beginning his in-processing with finance, SSG Boateng testified that he immediately informed the finance clerks that neither he nor his wife had gone to New York, and he hired a moving company to transport their belongings there. The finance clerks appeared confused about handling this situation, as it did not align with the information on his DA Form 31 (leave form) or the receipts he provided from Penske and the moving company. After discussing this among themselves, they instructed him to complete the vouchers based on his DA Form 31 and the supporting receipts. SSG Boateng complied, trusting their expertise as finance professionals. He testified that they placed “sticky notes” on each voucher, noting that he had not yet moved but intended to do so, and assured him they would contact him if further information were needed. When no one followed up with him, SSG Boateng believed everything had been handled correctly according to finance rules – never imagining he could be accused of BAH Fraud.

SSG Boateng also recounted his experience during his CID interview, which he described as unexpected and distressing. He testified that he was taken to CID without being told why and initially believed he was there as a witness for an unrelated matter. It wasn’t until he had read his rights that he realized he was under suspicion of BAH Fraud. The aggressive and accusatory nature of the questioning rattled him significantly since he believed he had done nothing wrong.

He explained that English is his third language, and while he is fluent, he sometimes struggles with spoken English under stress—mainly when dealing with unfamiliar accents. One of the CID agents spoke with a British accent, which further complicated his ability to understand specific questions during an already tense situation. Additionally, SSG Boateng testified about experiencing dizziness, sweating, and general discomfort during the interview due to syncope—a condition for which he had been diagnosed—and two antidepressants prescribed for depression and anxiety. Despite these symptoms, CID agents did not pause the interview or provide relief beyond offering him water.

Under these stressful conditions, SSG Boateng explained how confusion may have caused him to misspeak during questioning. He clarified that while he initially intended for his wife, Ms. Betty Forson, to move to New York, she never actually went there due to her medical issues. If it appeared that he said she was traveling “back and forth” between Washington and New York during questioning, it was a misunderstanding caused by stress and language barriers. It should not be taken as proof of intentional BAH Fraud.

SSG Boateng also testified about his repeated attempts—seven in total—to correct his BAH records after deciding with his wife at Christmas 2020 that she would remain in Washington for health reasons. Each time he tried to update his BAH through finance offices in Germany or during deployments in Hungary, he was told that changes could not be made without amending his orders—a process no one seemed willing or able to facilitate. This situation highlighted his challenges in avoiding allegations of BAH Fraud by ensuring his records accurately reflected his family’s living situation.

During his testimony, SSG Boateng addressed specific allegations regarding fabricated documents. He explained that he never received a refund receipt from Penske because he dropped off the truck after hours and left the keys in a drop box. He also clarified that the weight ticket submitted with his vouchers came from the moving company via email, which he provided along with their receipt when completing the vouchers under guidance from finance clerks.

To support his testimony, we introduced several key pieces of evidence:

• An out-processing levy briefing checklist documenting all forms completed by SSG Boateng during PCS preparations at JBLM.
• Mail addressed to him at the Bronx address as recently as 2024, reinforcing its legitimacy as a location tied to him personally.
• Medical records from April 2023—just weeks before his CID interview—diagnosing him with syncope and documenting treatment for depression and anxiety.

Through SSG Boateng’s testimony, we demonstrated a consistent pattern of “good faith” efforts on his part: following instructions from finance clerks during in-processing, attempting multiple times to correct BAH discrepancies, cooperating fully during an aggressive CID interview despite significant stressors, and ultimately trusting Army systems designed to guide soldiers through complex administrative processes related to BAH Fraud.

His testimony painted a picture of a soldier who acted reasonably at every step but was let down by systemic inefficiencies and miscommunications within those systems. By giving voice to SSG Boateng’s experiences, we humanized him before the members. We shifted focus away from allegations of BAH Fraud toward broader issues of fairness and accountability within military processes.

After SSG Boateng testified, it became essential to revisit the finance policy chief’s testimony to address critical gaps in his earlier statements and clarify what a soldier is supposed to do when the documents supporting the initiation of BAH are deemed insufficient, but the BAH has already been started. This recall proved instrumental in highlighting systemic confusion and the lack of clear procedures for handling unusual circumstances within military finance operations that can lead to allegations of BAH Fraud.

When asked how a soldier should proceed if finance clerks mistakenly initiated BAH based on incomplete or incorrect documentation, the finance policy chief struggled to provide a definitive answer. His initial response reflected an apparent disbelief that such mistakes could occur, revealing a naiveté about the realities of low-level clerks’ duty performance in finance sections. This disparity between policy and practice underscored a systemic issue: while policies may assume flawless execution, the reality on the ground often involves human error and inconsistent application of rules, which can lead to BAH Fraud allegations.

Eventually, when pressed to consider the possibility of a finance clerk error, the finance policy chief suggested that correcting such a mistake would require guidance from higher headquarters. He admitted that this process was unclear and potentially cumbersome. This admission reinforced our argument that soldiers like SSG Boateng are often left without practical solutions when faced with administrative errors outside their control, increasing their vulnerability to BAH Fraud charges.

The questioning then turned to what finance clerks should do when a soldier’s DA Form 31 (leave form) lists a location that was not traveled to. The finance chief’s responses were evasive and convoluted. He quibbled over whether the leave form had been approved, signed as completed, or modified—ultimately concluding that if it was incorrect, it would need to be canceled and re-initiated before completing the travel voucher. He acknowledged that this process is complex and time-consuming, illustrating how soldiers can become entangled in bureaucratic red tape through no fault, potentially leading to BAH Fraud allegations.

Through this cross-examination and subsequent direct questioning, three critical points became abundantly clear:

1. BAH Cannot Be Changed Without Amending Orders: The finance policy chief reiterated that any changes require formal amendments once BAH is initiated based on orders listing a dependent’s address. This process is often inaccessible or poorly understood by soldiers and finance personnel, which can lead to BAH Fraud allegations.
2. Finance Has No Clear Process for Changing Orders: The finance policy chief admitted that his office lacked clarity on facilitating order amendments, leaving soldiers like SSG Boateng stuck in a cycle of conflicting guidance and unresolved issues related to BAH Fraud.
3. Unusual Circumstances Cause Finance Confusion Due to Lack of Precise Guidance: The testimony exposed systemic inadequacies in addressing non-standard situations, such as when soldiers do not travel to the location listed on their leave form or rely on advice from finance clerks that later prove incorrect, which can result in BAH Fraud allegations.

This recall of the finance policy chief was integral in reinforcing our defense narrative: SSG Boateng acted reasonably by following instructions from finance clerks during his in-processing, yet he was ultimately failed by a system ill-equipped to handle deviations from standard procedures. The lack of clear guidance and accountability within military finance operations created confusion and placed undue responsibility on soldiers like SSG Boateng to navigate a perplexing and inconsistent process.

One of the most clarifying moments in United States v. SSG Boateng came when his wife, Ms. Betty Forson, testified, providing critical context and corroborating key aspects of the defense’s narrative. Despite knowing her address and phone number, neither CID nor the prosecutors had interviewed her before trial, a glaring omission in their investigation. While we did not request her production by the government for trial, we notified them before our case-in-chief of our intent to call her telephonically. The judge permitted the government to interview her before her testimony, but her statements ultimately reinforced SSG Boateng’s account and exposed the government’s failure to investigate the facts thoroughly.

Ms. Forson testified that in the summer of 2020, she and her husband decided that when he PCSd to Germany, she would move in with his uncle, Mr. Sar Asare, at his apartment in the Bronx. She explained that this decision was based on their plan for her to have family support while SSG Boateng was overseas. She confirmed that they initially intended to make a DITY move to New York on July 27, 2020, but their plans changed when she experienced complications in her pregnancy that required immediate medical attention. Her testimony corroborated SSG Boateng’s account that they subsequently hired a moving company they found on Facebook Marketplace to transport their furniture from Tacoma to the Bronx on July 28, 2020—the same day SSG Boateng returned the Penske truck after deciding not to drive it himself.

Her testimony also provided a clear timeline of events following their initial plans. She confirmed that during Christmas leave in December 2020, she and SSG Boateng decided not to move her to the Bronx due to her ongoing health concerns and established medical care in Washington. She further testified that during his paternity leave in February 2021, SSG Boateng went in person to amend his orders to reflect Washington as their residence for BAH purposes. He could not amend the orders because 30 days had passed since his PCS to Germany. He was told repeatedly—both then and during subsequent attempts—that he could not change the BAH without amending his orders, a process that no one seemed able or willing to facilitate.

Ms. Forson’s testimony was critical for corroborating his version of events and highlighting systemic failures within military administrative processes. Her statements demonstrated that his actions were consistent with a reasonable effort to comply with Army regulations and that any documentation discrepancies resulted from miscommunications and procedural roadblocks rather than intentional BAH Fraud.

We dismantled key elements of the government’s case by presenting a consistent and credible timeline supported by SSG Boateng’s testimony and his wife’s corroboration. Her testimony underscored the human factors at play—health challenges, family decisions, and reliance on unclear guidance from finance personnel—and shifted focus away from allegations of deceit toward a narrative of “good faith” efforts hindered by systemic inefficiencies.

Mr. Thomas Terry, a former soldier who deployed with SSG Boateng to Hungary in the summer of 2021, provided critical testimony highlighting SSG Boateng’s persistent efforts to address his pay issues. Mr. Terry recounted their deployment, during which they offered field feeding support for an extensive European exercise involving a finance unit from Baumholder, Germany. He testified that during this deployment, he witnessed SSG Boateng approach the finance unit to resolve his ongoing pay problems. Despite his efforts, SSG Boateng was once again told that no changes could be made unless his orders were amended—a recurring obstacle that had plagued him since his PCS to Germany. Mr. Terry’s testimony reinforced the defense’s argument that Godfred “Fred” Boateng made repeated “good faith” attempts to correct his BAH records but was consistently met with bureaucratic roadblocks beyond his control.

CPT Nelson Gomez, who served as SSG Boateng’s company commander for over a year, provided powerful testimony about his character and professional reliability. CPT Gomez explained that he had daily contact with SSG Boateng during this time and relied heavily on him for accurate information regarding DFAC operations and field feeding management. He described SSG Boateng as critical to the success of their food service operations and emphasized his trust in him as a dependable and competent soldier. Most importantly, CPT Gomez testified that he had formed a strong opinion about SSG Boateng’s character for truthfulness, stating unequivocally that he believed him to be a very truthful person. This testimony directly countered the government’s narrative of deceit and BAH Fraud, painting a picture of a soldier whose integrity was recognized and respected by his chain of command.

SFC Wema Maxwell, who had worked closely with SSG Boateng for five years, offered compelling testimony about his character and professionalism. SFC Maxwell provided unique insight into SSG Boateng’s reliability and integrity as someone who had known him personally and professionally – and as a fellow Ghanaian. She testified that she initially worked under SSG Boateng when she arrived in Grafenwoehr and later collaborated with him extensively after her promotion to Staff Sergeant. When she was promoted to Sergeant First Class, SSG Boateng became one of her soldiers, and their professional relationship continued. Throughout their time working together, she relied heavily on the information he provided regarding DFAC operations and testified that she had never had reason to doubt him. Based on her years of experience working alongside him, she stated that she believed SSG Boateng to be an extraordinarily truthful person—a testament to his consistent honesty and trustworthiness in both personal and professional settings.

1LT Joseph Johnson testified about his extensive interactions with SSG Boateng during their deployment as company executive officer and afterward. He explained that during their deployment, he had hourly conversations with SSG Boateng regarding feeding operations and relied on him for accurate information critical to mission success. After the deployment, as the company executive officer, 1LT Johnson continued to work closely with SSG Boateng on various operational matters. He testified that he consistently found him to be reliable and honest. Like CPT Gomez and SFC Maxwell, 1LT Johnson stated that he had formed an opinion regarding SSG Boateng’s character for truthfulness based on their time working together—and in his opinion, SSG Boateng was unquestionably a truthful person.

The testimonies of CPT Gomez, SFC Maxwell, and 1LT Johnson collectively painted a compelling picture of SSG Boateng as an honest, truthful, and reliable soldier who consistently acted professionally and personally in good faith. These witnesses—each with firsthand experience working alongside or observing him—offered powerful corroboration of his integrity and truthfulness. Their statements countered the government’s allegations of BAH Fraud and underscored the systemic challenges soldiers like SSG Boateng faced when navigating complex administrative processes within the military.

The case of United States v. SSG Boateng concluded after three and a half days of testimony, cross-examinations, and the presentation of compelling evidence. Following closing arguments from the government and defense counsel, the members retired to deliberate on the findings. For four and a half hours, they carefully sorted through the evidence, weighed the credibility of witnesses, and considered the arguments presented by both sides. Their decision reflected the complexity of the case and the nuanced circumstances surrounding SSG Boateng’s actions.

When the members returned with their verdict, they delivered mixed findings. SSG Boateng was acquitted of the most serious charges—larceny and fraud offenses—charges that carried significant potential penalties and could have permanently tarnished his reputation and career. These acquittals represented a resounding rejection of the government’s narrative that SSG Boateng had acted with intent to steal or deceive. The defense’s systematic work exposing systemic failures and procedural ambiguities and SSG Boateng’s good-faith efforts to comply with unclear guidance resonated with the members.

However, the members did find SSG Boateng guilty of providing false information on his DA Form 5960, thereby making a false official statement. This finding reflected their belief that while there may have been inaccuracies in his documentation, these errors did not rise to the level of criminal fraud or larceny but were instead isolated to a single administrative misstep. While disappointing in some respects, this outcome underscored the importance of holding military systems accountable for providing clear guidance and ensuring soldiers are not unfairly penalized for relying on flawed processes or incomplete advice.

The verdict was both a victory and a lesson. It vindicated SSG Boateng against allegations of theft and BAH Fraud while reminding us how easily systemic failures can entangle even the most diligent service members in accusations of wrongdoing. At its core, this case highlighted not just one soldier’s struggle but also broader issues within military administrative systems that demand urgent reform to prevent similar injustices in the future.

For SSG Boateng, this verdict marked an opportunity to move forward with his integrity intact. For our team at the Law Office of Will M. Helixon, it reaffirmed our unwavering commitment to standing by service members who find themselves navigating complex legal challenges within an often-arcane system. The fight for justice does not end with a single case; it continues with every soldier we defend and every system we challenge to improve.

The sentencing phase of United States v. SSG Boateng brought to light the extraordinary character, resilience, and dedication of a soldier who had endured immense personal and professional hardships over the course of nearly two years. The government chose not to present a sentencing case, leaving the defense to present a powerful and compelling narrative through five witnesses, including SSG Boateng’s entire current chain of command: his commander, first sergeant, executive officer, and platoon sergeant. Each witness testified unequivocally that SSG Boateng was the best NCO in the company, instrumental to the unit’s success in accomplishing its mission.

The most striking testimony came from his command team, who emphasized that despite the weight of this case hanging over him for nearly two years, SSG Boateng’s performance never faltered. Instead, he excelled—mentoring junior soldiers and setting an example of professionalism and dedication. This diehard commitment to his duties spoke volumes about his character and underscored his value to the Army and his unit.

SSG Boateng himself provided unsworn testimony that was both heartfelt and profoundly moving. He described the toll this case had taken on him and his family. He explained how he had been involuntarily extended in Germany for 20 months—time that should have been spent reunited with his wife, Ms. Forson, and young son in Washington. He spoke about the emotional strain of being separated from his family, particularly in supporting his 4-year-old son diagnosed with autism. The financial burden was equally devastating; after CID directed finance to stop his BAH entitlements, SSG Boateng struggled to provide for his immediate and extended family in Ghana. He shared that he could no longer afford to pay for his aunt’s kidney dialysis treatment, which tragically led to her death from kidney failure just months after she was forced to stop treatment.

Despite these overwhelming challenges, SSG Boateng expressed an undying love for the Army and a desire to continue serving and growing within its ranks. He testified about enduring five months without pay since October 2024, which left him in a dire financial situation while he still strived to fulfill his responsibilities as a father, husband, and soldier.

Our sentencing argument emphasized that a conviction for making a false official statement—an offense typically handled through non-judicial punishment—had already resulted in significant consequences for SSG Boateng. The court-martial process and conviction itself had been punishment, compounded by the financial hardships he endured due to pay issues stemming from this case. We argued that further financial penalties would only harm his ability to support his family and recover from this ordeal.

We urged the military judge to impose no more than 14 days of hard labor without confinement and a reprimand, highlighting that SSG Boateng’s exceptional service record, dedication to his unit, and resilience under pressure warranted leniency. His chain of command had spoken resolutely about his value as a soldier and leader—a testament to his potential for continued contributions to the Army.

After deliberating for just 45 minutes, the military judge delivered a sentence reflecting fairness and compassion: a reprimand. This decision acknowledged the wrongfulness of SSG Boateng’s situation while allowing him the opportunity to rebuild his career and continue serving with honor.

The case of United States v. SSG Boateng was not just a legal battle—it was a testament to the resilience of a soldier, the sacrifices of his family, and the importance of a fair and thorough defense. It highlighted systemic failures within military administrative processes and underscored the human toll these failures can take on service members who dedicate their lives to serving their country. Despite facing significant challenges, SSG Boateng’s integrity, perseverance, and commitment to his duties shone through, leading to a verdict and sentence that reflected fairness and compassion.

At the Law Office of Will M. Helixon, we are proud to have stood by SSG Boateng throughout this journey. His case is a potent reminder that every service member deserves a robust defense and advocates who will fight tirelessly to ensure justice prevails. Whether navigating complex administrative systems, defending against allegations of BAH Fraud, or addressing systemic inequities, our mission is clear: to defend America’s Warriors

If you or someone you know is facing allegations of BAH Fraud or other military legal challenges, don’t face it alone. Contact the Law Office of Will M. Helixon today. Our Warrior Law Team^TM has the experience, dedication, and expertise to navigate these complex cases and fight for the justice you deserve. Let us help you protect your career, reputation, and future.