This page gives a general overview of these practice areas. For detailed explanations and practical guidance, see the related subpages.
Drug offenses and financial fraud offenses do not seem related at first, but they share one feature. Both create an immediate loss of trust. A positive urinalysis or a false statement on a form tells the command that a service member cannot be relied on.
This page is an overview of these two areas of the law. Our subpages. Provide more information on each one.
Article 112a: Drug Use and the Urinalysis Process
Drug cases look simple on paper. The government points to a laboratory result and stops there. The problem is that every step of the process leading to that result is performed by people. People make mistakes, overlook instructions, forget steps, mislabel forms, and mix up samples. A urinalysis result is only as reliable as the smallest step in the chain that produced it.
How the government tries to prove unlawful use
To convict under Article 112a, the government must prove three things.
• The accused used a controlled substance.
• The accused knew they used it.
• The accused knew it was a controlled substance.
The government tries to bridge these gaps by pointing to concentration levels or by drawing inferences from timing or circumstance. These inferences are permissive. A judge or panel can use the inference to sustain a guilty verdict but isn’t required to. A positive urinalysis might be enough to prove guilt, but it’s not the end of the analysis.
The weak points in the urinalysis process
Unit collection issues
Problems often begin at the collection site. Collectors and observers are usually junior personnel. They process many samples in a short period. Errors can occur in labeling, initialing, documenting dates and times, or maintaining visual contact with the specimen. Mistakes in these areas can break the chain of custody. Delayed storage or incorrect storage conditions also raise concerns about the integrity of the sample.
Laboratory issues
Laboratory testing must follow specific procedures. Instruments require calibration. Controls must be used correctly. Analysts must complete and record each step. The testifying expert is often someone who reviewed the file rather than the person who performed the test, which may limit their ability to explain specific details about the analysis. These factors can create grounds to challenge whether the laboratory followed required protocols.
Low concentration issues
Results near the cutoff level present additional problems for the government. Low concentrations make it harder to prove knowledge or intent. The timing of ingestion and the substance’s half-life may support an argument that any exposure was remote or unknowing. When the numbers are close to the threshold, the prosecution’s ability to draw strong inferences about use is reduced.
Alternative explanations
If the test result itself is reliable, the next question is how the substance entered the body. Many substances can be consumed unknowingly. Food, topical products, mislabeled supplements, and contaminated items have all produced positive tests. The defense explores these paths to show the absence of knowing use.
Why these cases end careers
Any action involving a drug test places a service member under suspicion. Even a reprimand or NJP for drug use ends advancement and often leads to separation. The career impact is severe even when the alleged substance is legal in the civilian world.
THC cases create separate issues, which is why our practice focuses mainly on cocaine, controlled prescriptions, designer substances, and any case involving officers or mixed allegations.
Fraud under Articles 121, 132, and 107
Fraud cases look broad because they cover travel pay, housing, government credit card use, dependency status, and any financial paperwork the military relies on. What ties them together is intent. The government cannot convict a service member unless it proves the service member meant to steal or meant to deceive.
The common pattern in these cases is a stack of charges arising from one transaction. A single form can produce three separate allegations. Understanding how the articles interact is the key to defending them.
Article 121: Larceny
This is the basic theft charge. In fraud cases, it applies to the money received. The question is whether the accused intended to take money they were not entitled to. Honest mistakes, confusion over regulations, and miscommunication with finance offices can amount to a successful defense. If the government cannot prove the intent to steal, the Article 121 charge fails. Because this is a specific intent crime, the law is essentially asking investigators, prosecutors, judges, and juries to be mind-readers. This often works to the defense’s advantage.
Article 132: Fraudulent Claims
Many fraud prosecutions rely on Article 132. A service member signs and submits a travel voucher, reimbursement request, or declaration. If the prosecution believes any detail is false, it treats the signature as proof of an intent to defraud.
Large fraud cases often come from PCS moves, weight allowances, mileage claims, or botched paperwork. The filing process is confusing. The regulations are long and easy to misread. The government sometimes responds by charging each line item separately and creating dozens of counts from a single move.
Article 107: False Official Statement
Article 107 is often the trickiest part of a fraud case. It applies when someone knowingly makes a false statement to an official or on an official document. It is often seen as the core “integrity” offense, and an allegation of lying to an official effectively creates an aura of deception and dishonesty around the accused.
Common fraud scenarios
Travel and PCS cases
These cases often begin with a discrepancy between the member’s understanding of their entitlement and what the finance office later claims was authorized. Many cases start with an overpayment that the member believed was correct.
Government credit card use
A single personal charge on a government card can lead to administrative action. Leaving that charge unpaid or hiding it can lead to criminal charges. The government must prove an intent to convert the money.
Housing and dependency cases
These cases often arise from delays in updating DEERS, misunderstandings about separation dates in divorce paperwork, or mistaken beliefs about eligibility for allowances. In marriage fraud cases, the government must prove that the marriage was entered solely for benefits.
Intent and the defense
Intent is the central issue in every fraud case. The prosecution attempts to show that the service member acted with a deliberate purpose to deceive. The defense focuses on whether the evidence supports a different explanation, such as confusion, error, misunderstanding of a regulation, or an administrative mistake.
Court-martial panels often face situations where the alleged loss is small or the paperwork is complex. The law still requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the service member intended to defraud the government. If the evidence indicates carelessness, incorrect assumptions about entitlements, or a failure to understand the rules, the panel will be inclined to acquit, regardless of the amount. The closer the defense can get to creating this scenario, the more likely the acquittal will be.
Restitution and context
In some cases, early restitution can help by showing that the accused never intended to keep the money. In others, it may be unwise to make payment before knowing the full scope of the allegation. We would advise against voluntary repayment without the guidance of a lawyer.
Why these charges are dangerous
Drug and fraud cases damage reputation. They bring questions about honesty, reliability, and readiness. They also lead to fast administrative action. Many commands begin separation procedures before the case is fully developed.
Because both categories turn on intent, knowledge, and procedural accuracy, they require a thorough review of documents and an expansive development of the context.
If you need guidance
If you are facing a drug allegation under Article 112a or a fraud allegation under Articles 121, 132, or 107 and need help understanding your options, you can call 800-319-3134 for a confidential review.