I Popped Hot on a Urinalysis (Article 112a UCMJ). Can I Save My Career?
The Short Answer: Yes, But You Must Fight Immediately.
A positive urinalysis does not equal automatic guilt.
Under Article 112a of the UCMJ, the government must prove two things:
- That you used a controlled substance.
- That the use was “wrongful” (meaning you knew you were taking it).
If you unknowingly ingested the drug—through tainted supplements, food, or drink—you are not guilty. At Gonzalez & Waddington, we treat drug cases as scientific battles, not just legal ones.
The “Permissive Inference” Trap
Prosecutors rely on something called “permissive inference.” This means they tell the jury/panel: “Since the drugs were in his urine, he must have put them there on purpose.
This is a logical leap, but it is not scientific fact. To defeat this, we often utilize independent forensic toxicologists to attack the government’s lab results. We look for:
- Chain of Custody Errors: Did the bottle leave the observer’s sight? Was the seal tampered with?
- Lab Protocol Violations: Military drug labs process thousands of samples. Machines are often not calibrated correctly.
- DNA Mismatch: We have seen cases where samples were mixed up at the collection point.
The Data: Supplements and False Positives
The dietary supplement industry is loosely regulated. Studies have shown that many “workout boosters” or “sleep aids” sold online or even in GNC can contain hidden banned substances or THC variants not listed on the label. If you believed you were taking a legal vitamin, you lacked the “criminal intent” required for a conviction.
How Gonzalez & Waddington Helps: We know which supplements trigger false positives. We can send the remaining pills in your possession to a private lab for testing to prove your innocence.
Defense Strategies for Article 112a
Here is how we analyze a “hot” urinalysis case to find the best defense strategy.
| Defense Strategy | When We Use It | Key Evidence Needed |
|---|---|---|
| Innocent Ingestion | Client did not know they consumed drugs (e.g., spiked drink, brownie). | Character witnesses, lack of motive, hair follicle test (sometimes). |
| Tainted Supplements | Client took a legal workout/health supplement. | The original bottle of supplements for independent testing. |
| Chain of Custody | The paperwork for the urine sample is sloppy. | The “litigation packet” from the drug lab showing gaps in tracking. |
| Passive Inhalation | Client was around heavy smokers (rarely successful, but possible). | Toxicology levels showing very low nanogram counts. |
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: Should I just accept the NJP (Article 15) to avoid a Court-Martial?
A: This is a personal decision, but you must know the consequences. Accepting an NJP often leads to an administrative discharge (General or OTH). If you are innocent, demanding a Court-Martial forces the government to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, which is much harder for them to do than simply signing an NJP.
Q: Should I ask for a hair follicle test?
A: Be careful. A hair follicle test looks back 90+ days. If you have any drug use in your recent history, this test will convict you. However, if you have been 100% clean, a negative hair test can be powerful evidence that the urine test was a “one-off” anomaly or error. Consult us before you take one.
Q: What if I used CBD oil?
A: Using CBD is currently prohibited for service members because it often contains THC. However, if you can prove you bought a product labeled “THC Free” and it was mislabeled, you may have a “Mistake of Fact” defense.
Don’t Let a Lab Report End Your Career
Science is not perfect. Labs make mistakes. Samples get swapped.
Gonzalez & Waddington works with the world’s top forensic experts to challenge military drug labs. We don’t just read the report; we tear it apart.
