Newsgroups: sci.military.naval
From: baldwin@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin)
Subject: Re: "piss tests in early 1980's" false positives?
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 21:07:40 GMT

In article <01be8dc5$32ff04c0$cf14460c@default>, Joseph M Guthrie
<Stackclimber@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Some news for you, Grey: For many years, the USN has maintained a zero
> tolerance approach to drug abuse. All sailors are educated that a
> single positive test result is cause for immediate dismissal from the
> naval service. If you don't believe a twenty year career man, ask the
> USN what their policy is now. I don't think its changed.

It was this way in 1987.  I, as a squadron Legal Officer, personally
processed numerous sailors for discharge on the basis of a single
positive drug result.  This included several cases where the CO simply
didn't *want* to get rid of the guys, but even his hands were tied.  I
thought then and think now that this policy was insane, but that is
how it was.

The official doctrine is that false positives are flatly impossible
with the current system.  I think anyone who knows anything about
human systems engineering knows that's bullshit, though I admit the
false positive rate is probably *extremely* low nowadays, what with MS
and GC tests performed on every sample before a positive result is
returned.
--
 From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin  |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_    Finger baldwin@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  for PGP public    |+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /         key information.  |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military.naval
From: baldwin@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin)
Subject: Re: "piss tests in early 1980's" false positives?
Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 18:48:23 GMT

In article <7g81qd$hmb@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>, yahyah
<nosalehere@f**spammers.net> wrote:
> > It was this way in 1987.  I, as a squadron Legal Officer, personally
> > processed numerous sailors for discharge on the basis of a single
> > positive drug result.  This included several cases where the CO
> > simply didn't *want* to get rid of the guys, but even his hands were
> > tied.  I thought then and think now that this policy was insane, but
> > that is how it was.
>
> Oops, now you are both flying full-bore into the "Dammit, I am
> right, you are wrong" fusillage of Cap'N Grey and Rick Stricker,
> both whom say that (pick the litany) "there wasn't major overall
> problems with the piss tests" or "never was anyone kicked out for
> ONE piss test" or "if they were kicked out, they deserved it,
> period."

I should mention, for completeness' sake, that there was a lower rank
limit on this policy.  As I recall, a short while before I took over
as legal officer, only E-6 and above were on a "zero tolerance" policy
such as I have described.  About the time I became Legal "O" the
threshold was reduced to E-5.  (We lost the two best E-5's in my
division when they returned from leave and popped positive.  The CO
flirted briefly with the idea of just flat-out finding them "not
guilty" in the face of the test results, so he wouldn't have to kick
them out of the Navy.)

Not long after I left my squadron (1989), I believe, the threshold was
taken down to E-4 and maybe it eventually applied to everyone.  I
really can't recall; it wasn't something I spent a lot of time
thinking about, once I was relieved of administrative responsibility
for enforcing the policy.

I did see one case where a CDR came up positive for opiates.  This was
the most ridiculous goddam thing I'd ever seen -- this guy didn't use
*cold* medicine, for God's sake!  I remember the docs gave him codeine
for a cough, once, he took a dose, and poured the rest down a drain,
because he didn't like taking a narcotic, he decided just to live with
the cough.

Eventually, the medical officers determined that it was the 3-4 poppy
seed muffins he ate on the way to work (on the WA state ferry) every
morning that had been responsible for the opium metabolites in his
urine.  So don't even try to tell me about how "reliable" this
screwed-up system is.
--
 From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin  |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_    Finger baldwin@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  for PGP public    |+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /         key information.  |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military.naval
From: baldwin@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin)
Subject: Re: "piss tests in early 1980's" false positives?
Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 14:15:00 GMT

In article <19990503181029.04643.00001035@ngol04.aol.com>, SeaWlf777
<seawlf777@aol.comQ> wrote:
> "EM3 found guilty at Captain's Mast for Violation of the UCMJ, Article
> 112a, Specification 1, Wrongful use of marijuana and Specification 2,
> Wrongful use of methylenedioxy amphetamine and methylenedioxy
> methamphetamine. Awarded: 45 days restriction/extra duties, oral
> admonition, reduction in rate to E-3 and forfeiture of 1/2 months pay
> per month for 2 months."
>
> No mention of processing for discharge, but I'm not sure if that
> would be included or not. Obviously, there appears to be some
> latitude in what the CO can do in some cases though.

Depends what you mean by "latitude."  (And I stress here that my
direct experience with this is rather out of date, but I don't have
any reason to believe the basic policies have changed.)

The CO always has the option of just finding the guy "not guilty" at
mast.  The mandatory processing for OTH discharge is predicated on an
NJP or court-martial finding of "guilty" on the offense.

If the CO finds the guy guilty -- even if he doesn't award any
punishment -- the MILPERSMAN leaves him no discretion whatsoever; the
member *must* be processed for administrative separation.  And the
guidelines for an admin sep board don't leave them a hell of a lot of
wiggle room, either.

In practice, what would happen if a CO found a guy guilty of a drug
offense, punished him, and then just "forgot" to process him for
separation?  I'm guessing probably nothing, unless by some chance
someone up the chain of command took a direct personal interest in the
case.  Possibly it would never even be noticed.
--
 From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin  |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_    Finger baldwin@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  for PGP public    |+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /         key information.  |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military.naval
From: baldwin@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin)
Subject: Re: "piss tests in early 1980's" false positives?
Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 18:41:50 GMT

In article <372FEAB2.753A5435@not.com>, gunny <gunnymcrd@not.com>
wrote:
> > Which would be more palatable to most people than the oft-heard
> > about situation when one claims to be gay in order to exit the
> > military in a more timely manner <G>.
>
> The Corps, as a rule, hates any member who goes UA or especially,
> deserts.  And our brigs (like Quantico) aren't candy-ass like YOUR
> brigs.

Usually Marine Corps pride is justified, but in this case it's a bit
misplaced.  I can't speak to the situation at Quantico directly, but
I can tell you that the Navy-run Philadelphia brig isn't "candy-ass"
by any reasonable person's standards.

I can also tell you that in San Diego, it was the unanimous opinion of
every MAA, Legal Officer and JAG officer in the region that the USMC
brig at Camp Pendleton was the lamest, easiest way to do time in the
entire US military.  The Navy brig at NAVSTA San Diego wasn't exactly
Alcatraz, either, but at least they made the prisoners work now and
again.

> Personally, though--the military nowadays is so slack mode, extended
> babysitting mode, we keep lots of fuck-ups who should have been kicked
> out during boot camp.  Not a surprise they screw up once in the Fleet.

Perhaps if boot camp were the littlest bit stressful anymore, it would
help to weed out a few of the non-hackers.  Ah, but then we'd run the
risk of hurting someone's fellings, now, wouldn't we?

> In the Corps, the enlisteds come FIRST, even amongst the officer
> corps.  Even the officers know that the "real" marines are the
> enlisted ranks...the zeros aren't really considered "marines," but
> "officers of Marines," big philosophical difference.
>
> The Navy is different, in that your service is the most hidebound in
> terms of hierararchy.....officers are tin gods, enlisteds are to be
> put in their place.

I think this is a little unfair to the Navy, as it's not an accurate
representation of the way it's supposed to be run, but I concede that
officers who think they're "tin gods" and who are actually
contemptuous of enlisted men are tolerated in the Navy to an
inexcusable degree.  Most USN officers are not at all like this, at
least in the surface and aviation communities, but a few are, and it's
not treated as negatively as it ought to be.
--
 From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin  |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_    Finger baldwin@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  for PGP public    |+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /         key information.  |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------