Army E-8 tested positive on a urinalysis test for amphetamines and benzodiazepines. He was offered nonjudicial punishment, which he refused pursuant to JAG Defense advice. His command elected not to pursue a court-martial. Instead, he was processed for administrative separation and send to a discharge board. During our investigation into the urinalysis collection, JAG Defense discovered significant flaws in the urinalysis collection program overall, and with our client's sample specifically. We were able to obtain the urinalysis bottle from the testing laboratory, which definitively showed someone else's initials on the bottle attributed to our client! It was the rare case where we were able to prove without a doubt that a false positive urinalysis test had occurred. Result: The members voted 3-0 for No Misconduct and our client continued his Army career.

Navy E-5 tested positive on a unit sweep urinalysis test for cocaine and ecstasy. His command offered him Captain's Mast, which he refused and demanded trial by court-martial. During our investigation into his case, our attorneys discovered significant flaws in the command's urinalysis collection program. At his subsequent Special Court-Martial, we were able to show the command's failure to maintain a proper chain of custody on our client's sample, institutional failings in the command's urinalysis program overall. In addition, we surprised the government by proving that the UPC that testified in their case was not even the UPC that collected our client's sample. Following the close of the government's case, we rested without even needing to present a shred of evidence. RESULT: The member panel found our client Not Guilty.

A Naval Officer and healthcare provider self-enrolled in a rehabilitation program for an increasing dependence on sleep medication. While enrolled in the program, the officer continued to test positive for the metabolite for the sleep medication, leading her providers to believe that the officer was continuing to abuse the drug. Further, the officer also tested positive for an anti-seizure medication, which led to her removal from the rehabilitation program. The Navy initiated proceedings to revoke the officer's privileges to practice medicine within the Navy. The officer retained JAG Defense to represent her through this process. At her subsequent Peer Review Panel, we presented the testimony of two forensic toxicologists to demonstrate that our client's continued positive urinalysis tests were due to the metabolite for the sleep medication lingering in her body due to longterm abuse prior to entering the rehabilitation program. In addition, we presented evidence and testimony of numerous other individuals in the rehabilitation program who inexplicably tested positive for the same anti-seizure medication. We also challenged the reliability of the testing program due to its lack of a formal chain of custody and the employment of a civilian laboratory, rather than a DoD testing laboratory. Result: The Peer Review Panel unanimously found that none of the bases for the adverse privileging action were substantiated and our client was awarded full privileges.

Air Force E-6 tested positive for D-Amphetamines on a military urinalysis test. When he was pulled in for questioning by OSI, he was ordered to provide another urinalysis sample. This second sample also tested positive for D-Amphetamine. Based on the nanogram levels and time between urinalysis collections, the two tests were clearly the result of two separate ingestions of D-Amphetamine. At his subsequent court-martial, we were able to demonstrate that our client had unknowingly ingested his wife's Adderall prescription on numerous occasions. Our cross examination of the government's forensic toxicologist led to her conceding the scientific plausibility of this explanation, based both on the nanogram levels of each sample, as well as the ration of D-Amphetamine to L-Amphetamine in the urinalysis collections. Result: The member panel found our client NOT GUILTY.

Army E-7 tested positive on random urinalysis for cocaine. After hiring JAG Defense and following our advice, he refused his Article 15 and demanded trial by court-martial. During our investigation into the circumstances surrounding his positive urinalysis test, we learned that he had ingested ron caña, a Puerto Rican homemade liquor made from sugarcane, that had been provided to him by a family member. We arranged for the forensic testing of the ron caña, which revealed the presence of cocaine. Armed with these test results, at our client's ensuing court-martial, we elicited evidence scientifically corroborating the innocent ingestion defense from the government's own expert witness, compelling him to concede that our client's ingestion of the ron caña was entirely consistent with the urinalysis test results. Our client did not even have to testify. Result: Officer member panel found our client NOT GUILTY.

A decorated Gunnery Sergeant retained JAG Defense after she allegedly tested positive for D-Amphetamines on a random urinalysis test. During our initial investigation of the case, we uncovered significant issues with our client's urinalysis sample. Using the collection program's own records, we were able to demonstrate that the collection program had mislabeled another Marine's urinalysis sample with our client's information. We presented this information to the command, which resulted in NO CHARGES even being filed against our client.

Army E-7 tested positive on a unit sweep urinalysis test for marijuana and his chain of command referred his case to a court-martial. Complicating matters, our client also tested positive on a urinalysis test for marijuana fifteen years earlier, which the government sought to introduce as evidence of a pattern of drug involvement. Our client also had been counseled on numerous occasions for integrity issues. As a result, if our client testified, the panel would have learned that he had a history of making false statements and had a previous positive test result for marijuana. Since we were significantly limited in what type of case we could present due to these prior incidents, our attorneys instead attacked the collection program at the command, highlighting numerous instances of non-compliance with AR 600-85. Result: Even without testifying, our client was found NOT GUILTY of wrongful marijuana use.

Army E-4 tested positive on a random urinalysis test for marijuana at a nanogram level 5x the DoD cutoff. Upon our advice, he refused to accept nonjudicial punishment. His chain of command elected to refer his case to a Special Court-Martial. During the ensuing court-martial, the defense argued that even if the urinalysis test was accurate, the government failed to present evidence that our client's use of marijuana was knowing and conscious, as required by Article 112a, UCMJ. Following closing arguments, the officer panel deliberated for only 13 minutes before returning a verdict of NOT GUILTY.