Positive Urinalysis Success Stories

• Army E-6 tested positive for marijuana on a command sweep urinalysis. He was offered an Article 15, but followed our advice in turning it down and demanding a court-martial. During exhaustive pretrial preparation, we identified errors and deviations from the Army Regulation governing urinalysis collection. At trial, we attacked the collection procedures used by his unit during the unit sweep. On cross-examination, we were able to elicit admissions from ASAP personnel that they made numerous mistakes in collecting our client’s sample, and that they should have invalidated the sample because of those mistakes. The officer member panel found our client NOT GUILTY of the charge against him.

• Navy E-6 with 18½ years tested positive on a urinalysis test for marijuana at a level of 42 ng/mL. Upon our advice, he refused Captain’s Mast and demanded a court-martial. When his command refused to permit him to present his case at a court-martial, we represented the First Class Petty Officer at his administrative separation board. There, we presented evidence that our client knew the urinalysis was coming, that he could have possibly unknowingly ingested marijuana to cause a test result with a nanogram level like his, and that he had passed a civilian polygraph examination. The members deliberated only 8 minutes before returning a 3-0 vote for NO MISCONDUCT. Our client will continue on in his career and will be able to RETIRE.

• Army E-4 allegedly tested positive on a urinalysis test. His command offered him non-judicial punishment. Following our advice, and against the advice of his military defense counsel, he refused to accept non-judicial punishment and demanded a court-martial. At that court-martial, we focused our defense on the flawed collection procedures used by our client’s command. We specifically highlighted numerous errors that occurred during the collection of our client’s sample, to include one error overlooked by both the unit’s collection personnel, the base’s collection personnel, and the testing laboratory that should have rendered the sample untestable. At the close of the government’s case, the defense rested without needing to present any evidence at all. RESULT: A panel of Army officers found our client NOT GUILTY of the charge against him.

• USMC E-4 allegedly tested positive on a urinalysis test for cocaine prior to a deployment. At his court-martial, and after a year-long investigation, we attacked the command's flawed urinalysis program and forced the government's own expert to admit during cross-examination that unknowing ingestion or innocent ingestion was a reasonable possibility based on our client's nanogram level. At the close of the government's case, the defense rested without needing to present a shred of evidence or have our client testify. Result: A panel of Marine Corps officers needed only 24 minutes to find our client NOT GUILTY of the charge against him.

• Based upon a positive urinalysis test, a Naval officer was charged with cocaine use. At his General Court-Martial, he faced the possibility of confinement for 5 years and a Dismissal from the Navy if convicted. Our attorneys focused their attack on the government's lack of any evidence that our client knowingly used cocaine. Result: without even having to testify, our client was found NOT GUILTY by a panel of officers.

• Navy E-5 tested positive on a unit sweep urinalysis test. During our investigation, we uncovered numerous problems with the command's urinalysis procedures, which we highlighted for the members at our client's discharge board. In addition, we demonstrated through the testimony of a toxicologist that our client's nanogram level was entirely consistent with the possibility of unknowing ingestion. Finally, we also presented evidence of our client's actions on the day of the urinalysis that indicated his innocent state of mind. At the conclusion of the evidence, the members found that our client had committed NO MISCONDUCT and he was RETAINED in the U.S. Navy.

• Air Force O-3 (O-4 Select) tested positive for cocaine on a unit sweep urinalysis. During our case investigation, our client's wife admitted to using cocaine on a regular basis within the home without our client's knowledge. Despite making this fact known to our client's command well in advance of trial, his command still referred his case to a General Court-Martial, where he faced the possibility of 5 years confinement and a dismissal from the Air Force. At trial, we successfully demonstrated the realistic possibility that our client could have unknowingly ingested an amount of cocaine sufficient to produce his positive urinalysis. After only 29 minutes of deliberations, the member panel found our client NOT GUILTY of the charge against him.

• A 16-year Navy E-6 tested positive for cocaine on a random urinalysis test. Prior to consulting with us, he consented to (and did not pass) two NCIS polygraph examinations. When his command took him to an administrative discharge board, we presented concrete evidence that our client's wife had "spiked” the sugar bowl with cocaine. As a result, our client had unknowingly put cocaine into his morning coffee. On cross-examination of the government's expert toxicologist, the expert conceded that the nanogram levels exhibited in our client's urinalysis test were entirely consistent with our defense given the amount of cocaine ingested and the time between ingestion and the urinalysis test. Result: The members voted 3-0 that our client had committed NO MISCONDUCT and he was RETAINED in the U.S. Navy.

• An Air Force O-4 was charged with the wrongful use of cocaine based upon results of random urinalysis testing. After a four day trial, our client was found NOT GUILTY by court members.

• A Navy AT3 tested positive for cocaine on a random urinalysis. His command conducted an exhaustive inquiry into the urinalysis program and his urinalysis test and determined that his urinalysis test was conducted correctly. Despite the command's investigation, we convinced the members at our client's subsequent administrative discharge board that the preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding that our client knowingly used cocaine. Result: The members voted 3-0 found that our client had committed NO MISCONDUCT and RETAINED him in the U.S. Navy.

• After a port call in Honduras, two Navy Sailors tested positive for cocaine during the same command-wide urinalysis. They were both found guilty at Captain's Mast and sent to administrative discharge boards. One Sailor opted to retain our services to represent him at his board and one Sailor opted to be represented by military counsel. The Sailor represented by military counsel was found to have committed the misconduct and was administratively separated from the Navy. The very next day, our client was found to have committed NO MISCONDUCT and was RETAINED at his administrative discharge board. Later, we petitioned the Commanding Officer to SET ASIDE the results of the previous Captain's Mast and our client was restored to his previously held rank.

• A Navy Master Chief with over 28 years of service tested positive for cocaine on a random urinalysis. At his subsequent Special Court-Martial, we presented extensive evidence of our client's exceptional military character and the possibility of an unknowing ingestion of cocaine due to his low nanogram level. Result: The member panel found him NOT GUILTY of the charge and our client's outstanding military career continued unblemished.

• An Army Sergeant First Class retained our services after testing positive for cocaine on a random urinalysis and his command sent his case to a Special Court-Martial. During our pre-trial investigation, we learned that our client had ingested a homemade liquor or "moonshine” in the days leading up to his urinalysis test. We obtained a sample of this moonshine and secured government testing of the moonshine at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, which confirmed the presence of cocaine. Result: At his court-martial, our client was found NOT GUILTY of the charge against him.

• Air Force E-4 took leave in Central America. Upon his return, he tested positive for cocaine on a random urinalysis. During our investigation of our client's case, we uncovered numerous errors and oversights that occurred at the Air Force Drug Testing Laboratory on the same day that our client's sample was tested. Further, we found that one of the Laboratory's employees involved in testing our client's sample was later found to be a marijuana user himself. At our client's court-martial, we were able to elicit this information entirely upon cross-examination of the government's witnesses. As such, when the government rested their case, we saw no need to present any evidence at all and our client did not even testify. Result: Client was found NOT GUILTY of the charge against him.

• Navy E-6 tested positive on a random urinalysis test for the second time in his career. After being informed of the results of the urinalysis test, the Sailor provided a sworn, written statement admitting that his roommate frequently used cocaine and marijuana at their apartment. The Sailor also admitted that he thought he felt the effects of cocaine on the day before his urinalysis test. At his administrative discharge board, we convinced the members that the Sailor could have accidentally ingested cocaine. Result: By a vote of 3-0, the member panel found NO MISCONDUCT and our client was RETAINED in the U.S. Navy.

• A Navy E-6 (frocked) tested positive for cocaine on a random urinalysis. At his administrative discharge board, we demonstrated the command's gross noncompliance with the OPNAVINST governing urinalysis collection procedures. Specifically, we highlighted numerous chain of custody violations that occurred during the collection of our client's urinalysis sample. Result: By a vote of 3-0, the board members found that the preponderance of evidence supported a finding of NO MISCONDUCT and our client was RETAINED in the U.S. Navy.

• A Navy E-3 tested positive for amphetamines on two separated urinalysis tests two days apart. After retaining our services, we worked with an expert toxicologist and ascertained that both of his positive urinalysis tests were caused by his ingestion of Adderall, a prescription medication. Our subsequent investigation found that our client had unknowingly ingested an Adderall in the days leading up to both of his urinalysis tests. At his administrative discharge board, our cross-examination of the government's expert witness led to his acknowledgment that the timing of ingestion, the specific nanogram level, and the proposed medication that we had presented as an explanation for the urinalysis tests was entirely consistent with the urinalysis testing results. Result: By a vote of 3-0, the board determined that our client committed NO MISCONDUCT and he was RETAINED in the U.S. Navy.

• 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.

• 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 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.

• 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.

• 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.