Navy O-5 tested positive for d-amphetamine on a random urinalysis test and was processed for administrative discharge at a Board of Inquiry. JAG Defense fully investigated the circumstances of his positive urinalysis test, to include a review of the toxicology report from the drug testing laboratory. In doing so, we uncovered a number of important aspects of our client's drug test result. First, the ration of d-amphetamine to l-amphetamine present in our client's urine sample was 3:1, which indicated that the positive test result was due to a prescription medication, rather than a "street" amphetamine. Specifically, the ratio was entirely consistent with Adderall, a commonly prescribed medication for ADHD. Further, the d-amphetamine to l-amphetamine ratio was consistent with a recent use (within 12-24 hours), rather than a use that occurred many days earlier. This was particularly important because our client's nanogram level was fairly low, so it ruled out the government's argument that he had used a significant amount many days earlier and probably had a much higher level at some point. Armed with this information, we investigated our client's actions in the 12-24 hours prior to his urinalysis test, which included his handling his wife's Adderall medication on the morning of his urinalysis test. At his Board of Inquiry, we presented testimony from a forensic toxicologist to demonstrate that our client's test result was entirely consistent with his accidental ingestion of some minute amount of his wife's Adderall on the morning of the test collection. Result: By a vote of 3-0, the panel of O-6 officers found that our client had committed NO MISCONDUCT and RETAINED him in the U.S. Navy.

A Second Lieutenant in the Army National Guard tested positive for cocaine on a random urinalysis test. At his subsequent Board of Inquiry, JAG Defense presented compelling evidence of his military character, numerous errors by the collection facility, and the possibility of an unknowing ingestion. The officer panel voted 4-0 that there was insufficient evidence that our client had committed any misconduct, and RETAINED him in the Army National Guard.

USN E-5 tested positive on a command-sweep urinalysis for cocaine. His command began preparations for Captain's Mast and an Administrative Discharge Board. Immediately after being retained, the attorneys of JAG Defense began a thorough investigation into the allegations of drug abuse. In doing so, we identified a suspicious tea consumed by our client in the days leading up to the urinalysis collection. We arranged to have the tea tested by a private laboratory, which confirmed the presence of coca leaf in the tea. Armed with this scientific evidence, our attorneys prepared a comprehensive and compelling package detailing the findings of our investigation and provided it to the chain of command, to include the laboratory results, sworn affidavits of witnesses, and scientific articles about urinalysis testing following the ingestion of "coca tea." Result: Without even having to go to a discharge board hearing, the charges against our client with WITHDRAWN and DISMISSED.

Air Force E-3 tested positive on a random urinalysis for cocaine. We focused our entire case on the possibility of an unknowing ingestion due to our client's low nanogram level. At the conclusion of the case and while the members were deliberating, the military judge checked out of billeting, anticipating an acquittal after hearing our closing argument. Result: After only deliberating for only 32 minutes, the officer panel ACQUITTED our client of the charge against her.

Air Force E-3 was an activated Reservist who tested positive on a random urinalysis test for cocaine. His command sent his case to a Special Court-Martial, where he faced the possibility of a criminal record, confinement for one year and a punitive discharge. At the court-martial, we aggressively cross-examined the government's expert toxicologist and forced him to admit that unknowing ingestion of cocaine was a possibility given the evidence presented by the government. At the conclusion of the government's case, we saw no need to present any defense evidence. Result: Client was ACQUITTED of the charge against him.

A Navy E-5 tested positive for marijuana on a random urinalysis test. At his subsequent administrative discharge board, we presented evidence that the collection facility committed errors on 96% of the urine samples provided. Result: The board members voted to RETAIN our client.

An Officer in the Navy Reserve tested positive for cocaine at a level approximately 100 times the Department of Defense cutoff. Our investigation into the command's urinalysis program unearthed a history of errors and noncompliance with the applicable OPNAVINST. At our client's subsequent Show Cause Board, we presented evidence that the collection facility had an error rate of over 25%. Result: The members voted 3-0 that our client committed NO MISCONDUCT and he was RETAINED in the Navy Reserve.

A Master Sergeant in the Air Force Reserve with over 28 years of service tested positive on a random urinalysis test for cocaine. Without so much as a shred of additional evidence, our client's command immediately recommended administrative discharge and sought to characterize his service as Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. At his subsequent administrative discharge board, our cross-examination of the client's Commander highlighted the command's rush to judgment. Further, the Commander admitted under oath that he blatantly ignored later allegations of misconduct by individuals involved in the collection of our client's urinalysis sample that were brought to his attention. The O-6 Senior Member of the administrative discharge board was so troubled by the Commander's inaction that he initiated an independent investigation into his handling of the situation. In addition, the panel voted that our client committed NO MISCONDUCT and he was RETAINED in the Air Force Reserve.