Military drug testing operates through a chain of custody system designed to ensure that the sample tested belongs to the person accused and that its integrity has been maintained throughout the collection, handling, and laboratory analysis process. Every link in that chain must be documented, and a break at any point creates an opening for the defense. The system is designed to be reliable, but it depends on human beings following protocol, and protocol failures do occur.
A chain of custody challenge is not a simple assertion that something went wrong. It requires reviewing the actual documentation produced by the government, identifying specific gaps or inconsistencies, and presenting those findings through argument or expert testimony in a way that creates reasonable doubt about the reliability of the result. Defense attorneys who pursue this argument without thorough preparation accomplish little. Those who build it on a complete review of the records have succeeded in suppressing or discrediting positive results.
How Military Drug Testing Chain of Custody Works
Military urinalysis specimens pass through multiple hands from the moment of collection to the moment a confirmed positive result is reported. The chain begins with the observer and the collector at the testing location, continues through packaging, labeling, and transport, proceeds through the receiving process at the certified laboratory, and ends with the laboratory technicians who conduct initial screening and confirmatory testing. Each transfer must be documented, each handler must sign, and each link must be accounted for in the records the government produces at trial.
The documentation that supports the chain of custody includes DD Form 2624, laboratory batch records, shipping manifests, and internal laboratory log entries. A defense attorney challenging the chain of custody must obtain all of these records through discovery and compare them against each other to identify gaps, unexplained delays, missing signatures, or inconsistencies in the handling information. The argument is not that something definitively went wrong but that the documentation fails to establish with the certainty required that the sample tested was the sample collected from the accused in the condition in which it was collected.
The Most Common Chain of Custody Failures in Practice
Failures in military drug testing chain of custody fall into recognizable patterns. Missing or incomplete signatures on DD Form 2624 are among the most common, particularly at the collection site where the collector, observer, and specimen provider each have documentation responsibilities. Discrepancies between the volume recorded at collection and the volume recorded at the laboratory indicate either a documentation error or a handling issue during transport. Gaps in the documented custody during the period between shipping and laboratory receipt create uncertainty about who had access to the specimen and under what conditions.
Internal laboratory records that show inconsistencies between the specimen identifier assigned at collection and the identifier used in the laboratory batch records suggest a potential specimen identification error. Delays between the collection date and the laboratory receipt date that are unexplained by the documented shipping method raise questions about storage conditions during the gap. Any of these failures, presented through a thorough cross-examination of the government’s chain of custody witnesses and supported by expert analysis of the documentation, can create reasonable doubt about the integrity of the sample.
What Documentation the Government Must Produce at Trial
The government must produce the complete chain of custody documentation for the specimen at issue, including all copies of DD Form 2624, the laboratory batch records for the initial screening and confirmatory testing, shipping records showing how the specimen was transported from the collection site to the laboratory, internal laboratory log entries reflecting receipt, storage, and handling, and all laboratory reports including the confirmatory results that form the basis of the charge.
Defense counsel who receive this documentation must review it with sufficient care to identify every discrepancy. Reviewing only the final laboratory report is insufficient. The full set of records must be compared against each other, and any gap in the documented chain must be identified and assessed for its significance. An expert retained to assist with this analysis can identify technical issues that are not apparent on the face of the documents and can provide testimony that contextualizes those issues for the panel in terms they can understand.
Expert Witnesses and Laboratory Challenges
An expert in forensic toxicology who reviews the chain of custody documentation, the laboratory procedures used, and the specific results reported can provide testimony that a lay panel cannot obtain from any other source. The expert can explain how a break in the documented chain creates uncertainty about whether the tested specimen was the collected specimen, how handling or storage conditions outside specified parameters can affect specimen integrity, and how laboratory error rates and quality control failures affect the reliability of reported results.
The selection of a qualified expert requires attention to credentials, experience with military laboratory procedures specifically, and the ability to communicate technical information to non-specialist panel members. An expert who can clearly explain why the documentation gap matters, rather than simply asserting that it does, is more persuasive than one whose testimony requires the panel to accept conclusions without understanding the reasoning. Defense counsel who have used forensic toxicology experts in prior court-martial cases bring institutional knowledge about which experts are most effective in this specific context.
Cases Where Chain of Custody Arguments Led to Acquittal
Chain of custody challenges have resulted in acquittals and charge dismissals in documented military cases where the government’s documentation contained specific, significant gaps. Cases where the specimen identifier on the collection form did not match the identifier in the laboratory batch records, where the volume discrepancy between collection and testing exceeded the laboratory’s own tolerance limits, and where the documented chain of possession showed a period of unaccounted-for access have all produced successful defense challenges.
These outcomes are not common, because the military testing system is designed to minimize exactly these failures. But the system depends on human compliance with protocol, and human error occurs. The defense that reviews the full documentation carefully, identifies specific failures, and presents those failures through competent expert testimony in a clear and organized way gives itself the best realistic chance of turning a chain of custody argument into an outcome that serves the client.
This content is provided for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Military law is complex and fact-specific. If you are facing a UCMJ investigation, court-martial, administrative separation, or any other military legal matter, consult a qualified military defense attorney before taking any action.