Article 112a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) criminalizes the wrongful use, possession, distribution, manufacture, or introduction of controlled substances (including THC vapes, cocaine, amphetamines, MDMA, opioids, LSD, and diverted prescriptions). A 112a conviction can destroy a career—punitive discharge, confinement, forfeitures, grade reduction, and separation boards/BOIs are all on the table. At Gonzalez & Waddington, we defend service members worldwide against urinalysis cases, digital drug investigations, and “distribution” allegations driven by chat logs and cash apps.

Watch: How We Defend Military Drug Cases (UCMJ Article 112a)

Why Article 112a Cases Are High-Stakes

• Career-ending risk: A single positive urinalysis or chat-based “distribution” theory can lead to court-martial or administrative separation.
• Mandatory processing: Many commands initiate separation boards/BOIs after a positive test—even when charges are not preferred.
• Collateral harm: Loss of benefits, adverse evaluations, promotion bars, and post-service licensing/employment issues.

What Article 112a Covers (and What the Government Must Prove)

Common Specifications

• Wrongful use of a controlled substance (proved by urinalysis, admissions, or witnesses).
• Wrongful possession (actual or constructive; found on you, in your space, or under your control).
• Distribution/intent to distribute (messages, payments, packaging, scales, or multiple baggies).
• Introduction onto an installation (even small amounts; often charged with possession).

Key point: “Wrongfulness” is an element. The Government must show you did not have legal authorization (e.g., valid prescription) and that you knew the substance was controlled.

Urinalysis Cases: Science, Chain of Custody, and Reasonable Doubt

Collection & Validity

• Collection protocol: observer procedures, bottle sealing, labeling, custody forms—one gap can undermine reliability.
• Specimen validity: creatinine, specific gravity, pH, oxidants/adulterants—critical to interpret “dilute” or “invalid” results.
• Blind samples & QC: lab quality controls, calibrations, re-runs—request the complete lab packet.

Confirmation & Cutoffs

• Screen (immunoassay) positives must be confirmed (e.g., GC/MS or LC-MS/MS) at or above DoD cutoffs.
• Understanding detection windows matters—THC vs. cocaine vs. amphetamines differ dramatically.
• Cross-reactivity & isomer questions (e.g., d– vs. l-isomers) can be decisive for stimulant cases.

Defense insight: Many “hot” results fail under scrutiny of collection errors, validity data, and analytical uncertainty. A toxicology expert is often worth their weight in gold.

Digital Evidence in 112a Cases: Phones, Payments, and OSINT

• Messages & apps: texts, DMs, disappearing chat, audio notes—demand native files and metadata, not screenshots.
• Money trails: Cash App, Venmo, Zelle—context matters (repayments, group tabs, inside jokes).
• Location & sensors: EXIF, Google/Apple location, wearable biometrics (sleep/HR), badge swipes corroborate timelines.
• OSINT preservation: move fast with preservation letters; platforms purge logs.

Tip: Alternative sender/owner theories (shared devices, borrowed accounts) are common—and sometimes correct.

Winning Defense Theories

Use/Urinalysis

• Collection errors (observer, label, seal, custody) and validity anomalies (dilute, pH outliers).
• Analytical uncertainty (cutoff proximity, matrix effects, cross-reactivity), timing vs. alleged use.
• Prescription defenses, contamination/innocent ingestion (rare; expert-dependent), unknowing ingestion (edibles/Delta-8/“CBD”).

Possession/Introduction

• Constructive possession attacks: shared spaces, multiple access, no fingerprints/DNA.
• Knowledge: lacked awareness of substance (sealed packages, planted items, ride-shares).

Distribution/Intent

• Messages are ambiguous; prove non-drug context or joking/slang divorced from actual drugs.
• No scales, ledgers, or bulk packaging; payments correspond to non-drug transactions.
• Undercover stings: entrapment/inducement and reliability of informants (benefits, grudges).

Separation Boards & BOIs After a Positive Test

Even without court-martial, commands often pursue administrative separation boards (enlisted) or BOIs (officers) on a preponderance standard. Treat boards like trials:

• Attack the urinalysis foundation (collection, validity, confirmation, detection windows).
• Argue retention using evaluations, awards, deployment value, and expert mitigation.
• Challenge selective enforcement and command bias.

Article 32 Hearings: Recon, Not a Dress Rehearsal

• Lock in SJA/agent testimony about collection and custody gaps.
• Force early toxicology and digital disclosures; define the expert battlefield.
• Do not preview your entire cross; keep flexibility for trial.

Sentencing & Collateral Fallout

Depending on the spec, sentencing exposure ranges from restriction/forfeitures to confinement and punitive discharge. Collateral risks include loss of GI Bill/VA benefits, state licensing issues, and civilian employment hurdles.

Mitigation Packet Essentials

• Duty performance (evals, awards), mission impact letters, deployment history.
• Treatment/compliance, negative subsequent tests, lifestyle changes.
• Credible character statements from leaders and peers.

Pro Tips & Common Mistakes

Gonzalez & Waddington | Elite Military Defense for Article 112a

Our team has dismantled weak urinalysis cases and “distribution” theories worldwide. If you’re facing Article 112a allegations or a positive test with a board looming, act now. Confidential consults: ucmjdefense.com | 1-800-921-8607.

FAQs: Article 112a UCMJ