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.

Our client, a Navy O-3, went TAD to Ghana. Following the trip, one of his disgruntled Sailors started circulating rumors that our client engaged in repeated sexual activities with Ghanaian foreign nationals, despite the fact that he was married. These rumors swirled around the command for months before an anonymous tip was made to NCIS only days before our client was set to PCS. After a rushed and laughingly inept "investigation," our client was offered nonjudicial punishment, which he refused. The command referred his case to Navy BUPERS, who ordered our client to show cause for retention at a Board of Inquiry for alleged violations of Article 92, 133, and 134, UCMJ. At the Board, we presented overwhelming evidence of our client's exceptional Naval career and integrity, as well as evidence that the accusing Sailor had a reputation for exaggerating and spreading rumors. Result: After only 10 minutes of deliberations, the Board voted 3-0 that our client committed NO MISCONDUCT and to RETAIN him in the Navy.

A group of officers and enlisted members went on liberty in Djbouti, Africa. While on liberty, they purchased and consumed alcohol (with the exception of the driver). On the way back to their base, they struck a camel, severely damaging their GOV. In the ensuing investigation, a number of the members made false, conflicting statements about their consumption of alcohol. Our client admitted to his own drinking, but on two separate occasions, denied knowledge of anyone else's purchase or consumption of alcohol, which was not true. Our client was taken to Admiral's Mast, where he was found guilty of false official statement, conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, and failure to obey a lawful regulation. Following his Mast, our client completed his deployment in Djbouti, returned to the U.S., and then was notified that he would be required to show cause for retention in the U.S. Navy. At his Board of Inquiry, our client took responsibility for making false statements on 2 occasions, as well as not properly executing the required liberty paperwork (which was the basis of the orders violation). We presented compelling evidence of his otherwise positive Naval career, coupled with his exceptional performance on deployment, both before and after the incident. Result: The Board voted 3-0 to RETAIN our client in the U.S. Navy.

Senior Officer (O-5) Commanding Officer was named subject in three complaints filed by a disgruntled former subordinate Department Head/Junior Officer concerning administrative orders request, IG Complaint and Article 1150 US Navy Regulations complaint of wrong, all related to alleged administrative misconduct by the Commanding Officer. Working very closely with assigned military defense counsel, we were ultimately able to achieve a favorable resolution of the issues/concerns and, despite an initial delay, the client was both promoted to O-6 and continued in career-enhancing assignments with no permanent adverse official military personnel file entries.

22 year Naval Officer was taken to a Board of Inquiry for allegations including fraud against the government (Art 132, UCMJ), failure to obey a general order or regulation (Art 92, UCMJ), conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman (Art 133, UCMJ), and numerous allegations of substandard duty performance. At his Board of Inquiry, JAG Defense vigorously defended our client against all allegations by attacking the sufficiency of the investigation, impeaching the objectivity and motives of the Commodore who ordered the investigation and Board of Inquiry, presenting conclusive proof of our client's innocence, and calling a virtual parade of fellow officers to testify to our client's outstanding officership, integrity, and military character. Result: The O-6 board members deliberated for only 5 minutes before returning a finding of NO MISCONDUCT on all charges, and RETAINED our client in the U.S. Navy.

Navy E-4 tested positive on a urinalysis test for benzoylecgonine, the metabolite for cocaine. He immediately retained the services of JAG Defense to represent him. His command initiated Captain's Mast, which he refused to accept. As anticipated, his command opted not to pursue a court-martial, and instead sent his case directly to an administrative separation board. At his subsequent board, JAG Defense presented testimony from a local bouncer who admitted to spiking our client's drink with cocaine. In addition, the government's expert in forensic toxicology admitted during our cross-examination that the nanogram level in our client's sample was scientifically consistent with the explanation of the spiked drink, and that our client's test results were so low that he may not have even felt the effects of cocaine, let alone used it intentionally. Result: The members voted 3-0 that our client committed NO MISCONDUCT and to RETAIN him in the U.S. Navy.

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.