Brief summaries of JAG Defense’s Representative Cases for Urine Analysis cases are listed below.
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.
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 military 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 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.
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.
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.
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 military 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.
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.
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.
Grover H. Baxley is the founding attorney of JAG Defense. As a former member of the U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate General’s Corps, Mr. Baxley now provides highly experienced representation for military members in all branches of service all over the world.
Jill Thomas has served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, military defense counsel, and military judge. She has extensive experience in military justice, litigation and administrative processes.
Client defense contractor issued Statement of Reasons (SOR) under Adjudicative Guideline for Financial Considerations based upon a dozen accounts in collections, arrears, and/or Judgments, totaling approximately $22,000. After presentation of case at a Hearing, the Administrative Judge found FOR THE APPLICANT and granted the clearance.
JAG Defense
Virginia Beach Location
4445 Corporation Lane
Virginia Beach, VA 23462
877-222-4199
contact@jagdefense.com
© 2025 JAG Defense
Disclaimer