military drug policy

[kraemer]

Drug test report returned as "not urine" Can she be charged as if test was "positive" ? She adamently denied andoffered to take immediate retest. Can she be prosecuted as drug offense and discharged?

 

[HomeGuru]

Drug test report returned as "not urine" Can she be charged as if test was "positive" ? She adamently denied andoffered to take immediate retest. Can she be prosecuted as drug offense and discharged?

**A: yes, most assured especially if the actual sample was not water, juice, beer, wine, green tea, soda pop etc. Who is this she anyway and does she do drugs?

 

[kraemer]

Guru not sure if i understand your reference to actual sample not water, juice, etc.
The specimin was not tested because it was determined to b not urine.
What drug wouldthey charge her with having used?

 

[HomeGuru]

Guru not sure if i understand your reference to actual sample not water, juice, etc.
The specimin was not tested because it was determined to b not urine.
What drug wouldthey charge her with having used?

**A: well was the sample supposed to be a urine sample? If so, then she must retest and have a witness present when she gives the sample.

 

[kraemer]

Yes it was a random urine test and she was watched but was somehow able to substitute a none urine specimin.

 

[HomeGuru]

Hmmmm, is she a she male?

 

[kraemer]

not a helpful reply

 

[loocpoc]

Yes it is a violation of Article 134 of the UCMJ. Its basically a disorderly charged that would be lowered to a reprimand. If she were to take a retest and come back postive should be charged with Article 112 and can bu court martialed.

 

[AmosMoses]

How was this "non-urine" determination made? Low specific gravity of sample, low or high temperature of sample, absence of creatine in sample? What I am getting at is if she adulterated it with a strong oxidizer, or possibly glutaraldehyde, or some retail adulterant, these do different things to other "normal" urine contents, not only drugs and their metabolites. The way drug screeners suspect samples as bogus are due to the physical characteristics listed above, and how they test for adulterants many times hinges on the absence of things other than drug metabolites, or the urine being "too clean". This will flag the initial sample, likely tested through immunoassay or other good but cheaper testing types, for further and much more specific and accurate testing (GC/MS). She is likely to be accused of adulterating or substituting a sample with water (many collection rooms have no running water, and colored water in the toilets, even the tank...the small tube that fills the tank is protected from easy availability to fill the container, too. People go to MANY extremes to foul these things, up to and including cathetherization with clean water prior to the sample!!!). If she was observed, hope for any chain of custody problem and harp on it if you find one. Your best bet would be to examine the chain of custody of the sample from her hands all the way through the initial as well as the confirmatory test. Also ask if a "hold back" sample exists for your own testing to see if one exists. I am very curious as to what this was...an adulterant or a sub.