Military Drug Testing is --Purrfect

Let's see

Colleague and friend Patrick Korody has this list. He missed several.

• 1995: Navy Drug Screening Laboratory Norfolk (now closed) – two employees were fired for tampering with samples to mask problems with quality control.
• September 2004: Navy Drug Screening Laboratory Jacksonville – false positive for THC.  Negative blind quality control tests positive for THC.
• September 2008: Navy Drug Screening Laboratory Great Lakes – false positive for d-Amphetamine/d-Methamphetamine.
• July 2008: Tripler Forensic Toxicology Drug Testing Laboratory – heroin blind quality control replaced with random sample during testing procedure.
• April 2012: Fort Meade Forensic Toxicology Drug Testing Laboratory – blind quality control not tested; technician lies to conceal mistake; falsification of time cards. There were earlier reports of various problems at this facility in the early 2000s which were used in Army drug cases for a while.
• April 2012 – Navy Drug Screening Laboratory San Diego (now closed) – reports a false positive for d-Amphetamine/d-Methamphetamine.
• June 2016 – Tripler Forensic Toxicology Drug Testing Laboratory – for approximately 18 months, the lab hired and employed a husband and wife as the QA officer and technical director.  Wife certified the husband as a negative laboratory certifying officer outside the standard process.
• April 2017: Navy Drug Screening Laboratory Great Lakes – admits it has been reporting false positives for methamphetamine since February 2006.

The Brooks Air Force Testing Lab. Ultimately prosecutors and the appellate courts got tired of hearing about this problem and decided that after several months it was no longer relevant. See United States v. Jackson, 2003 CCA LEXIS 27 (AFCCA); United States v. Gonzalez, 2003 CCA LEXIS 57 (AFCCA); United States v. Mann, 59 M.J. 27 (AFCCA 2003).

It seems to me I recollect an issue some years ago where the tester at USACIL(?) had been using drugs and doing so when on duty. ??? (Anyone else remember that one?)

Then there was the infamous "Mobley" letter, which was not appreciated.

The "Mills" problem and USACIL. See United States v. Luke, 69 309 (C.A.A.F. 2011).